Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add voidful/academic-skills --skill paper-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/voidful/academic-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00168 | $0.04616 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00084 | $0.02308 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00923 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00462 |
Grade A, and why
paper-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 453 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
paper-review：學術論文審稿技能
概述
本技能提供一套系統化的學術論文審稿流程，適用於頂級會議（如 NeurIPS、ICML、ICLR、ACL、CVPR 等）與期刊的同儕審查。整個流程分為四個步驟，前三步以繁體中文進行深度分析，第四步產出符合會議格式的英文正式審稿。
核心理念
- 嚴謹但公平：審稿的目的是提升學術品質，而非打壓作者
- 具體而非模糊：所有批評都應指向具體段落、公式或實驗
- 建設性導向：指出問題的同時提供改進方向
- 多維度評估：不以單一標準論斷，全面考量論文各面向
四步驟審稿流程
總覽
| 步驟 | 名稱 | 語言 | 目的 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | 批判性審查 | 繁體中文 | 深入閱讀，找出優缺點 |
| Step 2 | 分數預測 | 繁體中文 | 各維度評分與整體分數預測 |
| Step 3 | 要點精煉 | 繁體中文 | 將發現整理為結構化要點 |
| Step 4 | 正式審稿 | 英文 | 產出符合會議格式的正式 review |
Step 1：批判性審查（繁體中文）
目標
以批判性思維深入閱讀論文，系統性地識別優點與缺點。此步驟為後續所有分析的基礎。
執行方式
-
第一遍：快速瀏覽（5 分鐘思維）
- 閱讀標題、摘要、導論、結論
- 瀏覽圖表與表格
- 形成初步印象：這篇論文在做什麼？聲稱了什麼貢獻？
-
第二遍：仔細閱讀（30 分鐘思維）
- 逐節閱讀，標記不清楚的地方
- 檢查數學推導的正確性
- 驗證實驗設置的合理性
- 確認 claims 是否有充分支持
-
第三遍：批判性分析（15 分鐘思維）
- 對照五大審查維度逐一評估
- 識別是否符合五大退稿模式
- 思考 missing baselines、missing ablations、missing analysis
輸出格式
## Step 1：批判性審查
### 論文基本資訊
- 標題：
- 作者：
- 投稿會議/期刊：
- 領域：
### 初步印象
（一段話總結論文做了什麼、聲稱了什麼）
### 優點列表
1. [S1] （具體描述優點，引用論文段落或頁碼）
2. [S2] ...
### 缺點列表
1. [W1] （具體描述缺點，說明為什麼這是問題）
2. [W2] ...
### 疑問列表
1. [Q1] （需要作者釐清的問題）
2. [Q2] ...
### 初步判斷
（對論文品質的初步判斷，包含是否達到會議門檻的直覺）
注意事項
- 優點和缺點都要具體，避免「寫得不錯」「實驗不足」這類空泛評語
- 每個優缺點都應該能對應到論文的具體位置
- 疑問列表要區分「真正的疑問」與「修辭性的批評」
- 初步判斷只是直覺，不要被它錨定——後續步驟可能改變結論
Step 2：分數預測（繁體中文）
目標
基於 Step 1 的分析，對論文的五個維度分別評分，並預測整體分數。
五大審查維度
每個維度以 1-5 分評分。詳細評分標準見 references/scoring-rubric.md。
| 維度 | 說明 | 權重參考 |
|---|---|---|
| 貢獻新穎性 (Novelty & Contribution) | 想法是否新穎？貢獻是否足夠？ | 高 |
| 寫作清晰度 (Clarity & Writing) | 論文是否易讀？邏輯是否清晰？ | 中 |
| 實驗嚴謹性 (Experimental Rigor) | 實驗設計是否嚴謹？結果是否可靠？ | 高 |
| 評估完整性 (Evaluation Completeness) | 評估是否全面？是否有遺漏的比較？ | 中高 |
| 方法健全性 (Soundness of Method) | 方法是否正確？假設是否合理？ | 高 |
詳細的維度說明請參考 references/review-dimensions.md。
評分體系
- Overall Score（整體分數）：1-10 分，詳見
references/scoring-rubric.md - Confidence（信心度）：1-5 分，反映審稿者對自身評估的確信程度
- 各維度分數：1-5 分
輸出格式
## Step 2：分數預測
### 各維度評分
| 維度 | 分數 (1-5) | 簡要理由 |
|------|-----------|----------|
| 貢獻新穎性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 寫作清晰度 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 實驗嚴謹性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 評估完整性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 方法健全性 | X | （一句話理由） |
### 整體分數預測
- **Overall Score**: X / 10
- **Confidence**: X / 5
### 分數推理
（解釋為什麼給這個整體分數，各維度如何影響最終判斷）
### 與接受門檻的比較
（討論這篇論文相對於目標會議的接受門檻如何，是 clear accept、borderline 還是 clear reject）
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 453 lines · 168 tokens per session scan A 8c1a5f69640c
paper-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository voidful/academic-skills (126 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 168 tokens to every session and 4,616 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
hr-onboarding
A new-hire onboarding plan as a single page — first week schedule, buddy + manager intro, learning track, equipment checklist, and "you're set when…" outcomes. Use when the brief mentions "onboarding", "new hire", "first week plan", or "入职".
book-mirror
Take any book (EPUB/PDF), produce a personalized chapter-by-chapter analysis. Each chapter is preserved in detail (The Chapter) and mirrored back to the reader's actual life (The Mirror) using brain context. The mirror observes and resonates — a friend pointing out parallels, NOT a consultant rearranging the reader's…
miniapp
Build a tiny interactive HTML playground only when someone asks to see, play with, or step through a mechanism.
eli5
Explain research, papers, or technical ideas in plain English with minimal jargon, concrete analogies, and clear takeaways. Use when the user says "ELI5 this", asks for a simple explanation of a paper or research result, wants jargon removed, or asks what something technically dense actually means.
deck-course-module
A course or workshop slide template with persistent learning goals, teaching pages, multiple-choice self-tests, and a wrap-up.
master-yinguang
A reference-based assistant for questions about Yinguang and Pure Land Buddhism, a Buddhist tradition focused on faith, ethical living, and practice connected with rebirth in the Pure Land. It can answer in Yinguang’s historical teaching style.