AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Paper Reading

skill-jxtse-scientific-research-skills-paper-reading · by jxtse

>

No reviews yet
0 installs
15 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-jxtse-scientific-research-skills-paper-reading

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Paper Reading? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Paper Reading

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:

  1. Store structured summary to local dashboard
  2. 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   |                  |                  |

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.