Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

paper-reading

Lê e analisa artigos acadêmicos (pré-publicações do arXiv, PDFs de conferências/periódicos, itens do Zotero) em três profundidades configuráveis: leitura rápida (2 min), leitura padrão (10 min) ou análise aprofundada (30 min). Produz resumos estruturados que abordam problema, método, inovação chave, resultados, limitações, reprodutibilidade, suposições ocultas e conexões com outros trabalhos do usuário.

48estrelas
Atualizado há 5 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add jxtse/scientific-research-skills

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/paper-reading/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/paper-reading)

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de Marketing →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Marketing toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Marketing. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

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   |                  |                  |
Compartilhar X LinkedIn