paper-reading
>
pinned to #68098d5updated 2 weeks ago
Ask your AI client: “install skills/paper-reading”.
Requires the metahub MCP server installed in your client. Set up MCP.
mh install skills/paper-readingmetahub onboarded this repo on the author's behalf.
If you own github.com/jxtse/scientific-research-skills on GitHub, claim the listing to take over publishing. Your claim preserves the existing eval history and badges; only the curator label is replaced with verified-publisher on your next publish.
Stars
54
Last commit
2 weeks ago
Latest release
published
- #academic-research
- #agent-skill
- #claude-skill
- #literature-review
- #zotero
About this skill
Pulled from SKILL.md at publish time.
Structured workflow for reading academic papers efficiently.
Evaluation report
WarningsAutomated checks the publisher passed at publish time — structure, docs, safety, and whether the artifact behaves as claimed.68098d5· 2 weeks ago
Documentation
41Description qualitywarn
21 words · 101 chars — manifest description is empty; graded the GitHub repo description instead
A skill's manifest description doubles as its trigger — add one to SKILL.md (15+ words, e.g. “use this skill when …”).
README is present and substantial
13,987 chars · 7 sections · 5 code blocks
Tags / topics declared
5 total — academic-research, agent-skill, claude-skill, literature-review, zotero
README has usage / example sections
found: Quick Start · Installation · Example
Homepage / docs URL declared
no homepage declared (registry will use the repo URL) — info-only, not blocking
Release history
1- releasecurrent68098d5warn2 weeks ago
Contents
Structured workflow for reading academic papers efficiently.
When to Use
- User shares an arXiv link or PDF and asks to read/summarize it
- User asks about a specific paper's contributions, methods, or results
- User wants a reading digest for their records
- User asks to compare a paper against related work
Reading Levels
Level 1: Quick Skim (2 min)
When: User just wants to know if a paper is worth reading
Output:
- Paper title, authors, venue, year
- One-paragraph summary (what problem, what method, what result)
- Key contribution in one sentence
- Relevance assessment to user's work
- Recommendation: Read / Skip / Skim only
Level 2: Standard Read (10 min)
When: User wants to understand the paper's approach
Output:
- Problem: What gap does this address?
- Method: How do they solve it? (with key technical details)
- Key innovation: What's genuinely new vs. incremental?
- Results: Main numbers + comparison to baselines
- Limitations: What they don't do, acknowledged or not
- Connections: How does this relate to user's active projects?
Level 3: Deep Analysis (30 min)
When: User is seriously considering building on this paper
Output:
- Everything from Level 2, plus:
- Detailed methodology: Step-by-step technical walkthrough
- Reproducibility assessment: Can you implement this from the paper alone?
- Experimental design critique: Are the baselines fair? Metrics appropriate?
- Hidden assumptions: What are they not saying?
- Extension opportunities: How could this be improved or adapted?
- Key equations/algorithms: Extracted and explained
- Figure analysis: What do the key figures actually show?
Workflow
Step 1: Obtain Paper
arXiv link → Download PDF, extract text
PDF file → Extract text directly
Paper title → Search Semantic Scholar → get arXiv link → download
Zotero item → Get from local library
Step 2: Read at Requested Level
Follow the appropriate level template above. When in doubt, start with Level 2.
Step 3: Store Digest
After reading, save the digest:
- Store structured summary to local dashboard
- If user confirms, add/update Zotero entry with notes
Step 4: Connect to Context
- Link to user's active projects if relevant
- Suggest follow-up papers (from references or "cited by")
- Note if this paper supports or contradicts prior reads
Reading Heuristics
For ML/AI papers:
- Jump to Table 1 (main results) first — if the numbers aren't impressive, calibrate expectations
- Check the ablation study — it reveals what actually matters in their method
- Read the limitations/future work section — often more honest than the intro
- Look at Appendix — important details are often buried there
For methods papers:
- Focus on Figure 1 (method overview) + Section 3 (method) + Table 1 (results)
- Skip related work on first pass — come back only if you need positioning context
For empirical papers:
- Focus on experimental setup, metrics, and statistical significance
- Check if baselines are fairly implemented (same hyperparameter search budget?)
- Look for cherry-picked examples in qualitative analysis
Paper Comparison Mode
When user asks to compare two papers:
| Aspect | Paper A | Paper B |
|--------------|------------------|------------------|
| Problem | | |
| Method | | |
| Data | | |
| Key metric | | |
| Advantage | | |
| Limitation | | |
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first.
Related
Frontend Slides
Create beautiful slides on the web using Claude's frontend skills
Verification Before Completion
Evidence before assertions, always
Writing Plans
Turn specs into phased implementation plans
mh install skills/paper-reading