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 wanshuiyin/Anti-Autoresearch --skill adversarial-case-buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Anti-AutoresearchWrote 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/wanshuiyin/anti-autoresearch/adversarial-case-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanshuiyin/anti-autoresearch/adversarial-case-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanshuiyin/anti-autoresearch/adversarial-case-builder/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/wanshuiyin/anti-autoresearch/adversarial-case-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanshuiyin/anti-autoresearch/adversarial-case-builder.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00194 | $0.11691 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00097 | $0.05846 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00039 | $0.02338 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01169 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-case-builder 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 12d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- adversarial-case-builder — 92% identical, 51 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 746 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Adversarial Case Builder — the strongest evidence-bound objection
Build the single strongest evidence-bound case to reject $ARGUMENTS, then defend
it point-by-point. Emit adversarial-case-builder.memo.md. Run LAST, AFTER
/evidence-ledger (so claims.json exists) and AFTER the auditor skills (so the
merged *.findings.json exist).
🔒 Do not wrap this skill in
/loop,/schedule, orCronCreate. It runs LAST and synthesizes the ledger + the other auditors' findings into one memo. Even though it is memo-only (the adjudicator caps it atinfo, so it adds no verdict weight), the no-new-signal cadence rule still applies: its output changes only when the ledger / the findings / the paper change, never with the wall clock. Schedule the work that precedes it — ledger + auditors done → run this once. (Mirrors ARIS's external-cadence doctrine.)
Adapted from ARIS
kill-argument, with one deliberate downgrade: memo-only. In a forensics pipeline the headline-attack is most useful as a synthesis of already-anchored evidence, not a free-floating LLM critique — that free-floating mode is exactly the "LLM slop grading LLM slop" failure this repo exists to refuse. So here every attack point must cite an existing ledgerclaim_idorfinding_id, and the skill never emits verdict-bearing findings:tools/adjudicate_findings.pylistsadversarial-case-builderinZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLSand caps anything from it atinfo. The deterministic adjudicator owns the verdict; this skill owns the memo.
Why this exists
The standard auditors (consistency-audit, citation-forensics, …) fan out and
each flags discrepancies in its own dimension. They produce a balanced list —
each discrepancy at its own severity, none committing to "this is the one that sinks
the paper." That misses a specific failure mode: the single most damaging
paragraph a senior area chair would write in a rejection. A balanced reviewer lists
"scope-overclaim" as one major among several and never commits; an adversarial
reviewer must commit — their whole job is to convince the AC to reject in ~200
words.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 746 lines · 194 tokens per session scan A d47af199de44
adversarial-case-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository wanshuiyin/Anti-Autoresearch (153 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 194 tokens to every session and 11,691 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
codex-autoresearch
Triage improvement work and run or resume accepted measured loops in a local project. Architecture, documentation, UX, product study, open research, taste, and one-shot fixes stay direct unless the user explicitly requests repeated measurement with a complete experiment contract.
replay
Audit a past pruning or approval decision by creating a counterfactual branch from a saved snapshot without mutating the live graph. Use when the user asks what would have happened under another decision, disputes a paused branch, or wants to inspect an earlier checkpoint.
research-sop
Run an end-to-end, auditable research workflow from question framing through literature, competing hypotheses, experiment selection, implementation, verification, and claim handoff. Use whenever the user asks to investigate, compare, test, validate, or establish an empirical research claim, including when they do not…
debug-sop
Diagnose errors, failed tests, crashes, hangs, regressions, suspicious outputs, and unexpected experimental results through reproducible hypothesis-driven debugging. Use whenever a script or system behaves incorrectly, even if the user only says it is broken or pastes an error. Respect diagnosis-only requests…
writeup-sop
Produce or revise research reports, result-bearing Markdown, paper sections, and manuscripts without overstating evidence. Use whenever writing text that reports experimental metrics, statistical conclusions, hypothesis rankings, theorem claims, or research findings. Do not trigger for ordinary README edits…
preregister
Lock a confirmatory falsification target and its fixed multiple-comparison family before observing the confirmatory result. Use before promoting an exploratory finding to a main claim or whenever several related hypotheses need Bonferroni control. Records metric, threshold, family id/size, correction, and seed budget.