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 agentmods add skills/xintaofei/codeg/peer-reviewnpx skills add xintaofei/codeg --skill peer-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xintaofei/codegWhat 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 | $0.00071 | $0.04712 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.02356 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00942 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00471 |
Grade A, and why
peer-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 2d 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
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- peer-review — 95% identical, 6 lines differ
- peer-review — 95% identical, 6 lines differ
- inno-paper-reviewer — 86% identical, 63 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 572 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review
Overview
Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.
When to Use This Skill
This skill should be used when:
- Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
- Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
- Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
- Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
- Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
- Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
- Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing
Related Resource: The venue-templates skill provides reviewer_expectations.md with detailed guidance on what reviewers look for at different venues (Nature/Science, Cell Press, medical journals, ML conferences). Use this to calibrate your review standards to the target venue.
Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics
When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.
If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:
- Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
- Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
- Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic
For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.
How to generate schematics:
python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png
The AI will automatically:
- Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
- Review and refine through multiple iterations
- Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
- Save outputs in the figures/ directory
What ships with it
4 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 572 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 0244a7dec25e
peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository xintaofei/codeg (3,091 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 4,712 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
paper-review
Systematic LaTeX paper review for correctness, clarity, and consistency. Builds overview from intro sections, then reviews each section in parallel.
knowledge-base
Create and maintain a Markdown knowledge base that any AI agent can read, search, and update. Use when the user wants to start a knowledge base, add or update notes, organize docs/notes for an agent or LLM to consume, build an index of notes, or run a cleanup/maintenance pass on an existing MD knowledge base. Triggers…
obsidian-vault
Organize Obsidian vaults with MOCs, wikilinks, frontmatter/properties, dashboards, orphan-note checks, and cleanup workflows. Use ONLY when the user explicitly refers to Obsidian — by naming "Obsidian", an Obsidian "vault", or an Obsidian-specific feature such as wikilinks ("[[ ]]"), the Dataview or Bases plugins, or…
clinical-reports
Write comprehensive clinical reports including case reports (CARE guidelines), diagnostic reports (radiology/pathology/lab), clinical trial reports (ICH-E3, SAE, CSR), and patient documentation (SOAP, H&P, discharge summaries). Full support with templates, regulatory compliance (HIPAA, FDA, ICH-GCP), and validation…
clinical-decision-support
Generate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading…
immunology-assays
Computational analysis of immunology experimental data. ATAC-seq differential accessibility, immune cell tracking from microscopy, ELISA data processing with 4-parameter logistic fitting, immunohistochemistry quantification, antibody titer analysis, and cell cycle phase duration estimation. For flow cytometry use…