Paper to code
Claude Code plugin: runtime invariants + hooks (cycle-detector, approval gate, verification gate), four co-system agents (developer · analyzer · critic · epistemic-auditor), and a held-out evaluation harness. Anti-hallucination protocol grounded in game theory and the scientific method.
npx -y skills add AlexShchuka/neuro-matrix --skill paper-to-codeAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Implement an academic paper (arXiv or any quantitative source) as verifiable code without inventing unstated details. Use when asked to implement, reproduce, or prototype a method from a paper. Produces an ambiguity audit before code, citation-anchored decisions, and machine-checkable sanity verification.
SKILL.md
3.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Paper-to-code: implementation without invention
BLUF: the paper is the only source of truth; every implementation decision is either anchored to it or explicitly flagged as our choice. The dominant failure mode is silent gap-filling — plausible defaults presented as the paper's content. That is neuroslop in code form, and this skill exists to make it structurally impossible.
Stage 0 — acquire the full text
- Prefer arxiv-mcp tools (
download_paper/read_paper) when available; otherwise WebFetch the abstract page and PDF. - Appendices, footnotes, table captions, and figure captions are first-class sources — missing hyperparameters usually live there, not in the method section.
- If the authors published official code, locate it; it is a second, separately-tagged source — never a silent one.
Stage 1 — ambiguity audit, before any code
Classify every implementation-relevant decision; the tags below are this skill's specialization of the harness claim-typing discipline (epistemic boundary: confirmed ≠ associative):
| Tag | Meaning | Obligation |
|---|---|---|
FACT §X.Y / Eq. N | stated in the paper | anchor to the exact section/equation |
PARTIAL §X.Y | mentioned but ambiguous | quote the passage verbatim, list the readings |
UNSPECIFIED | paper is silent | our default + alternatives, never filled silently |
ASSUMPTION | inference from context | reasoning stated next to it |
FROM-CODE | taken from the authors' implementation | tagged as code-derived, not paper-derived |
QUESTION | load-bearing gap that cannot be defaulted safely | ask the developer before coding — not a guess |
A QUESTION blocks its code path until answered (mental model gate).
Stage 2 — implementation
- Non-trivial decisions carry their
§/Eq.anchor in the audit table; inline flags ([UNSPECIFIED],[ASSUMPTION]) appear only at load-bearing lines. These are constraint provenance the code cannot show by itself — not decoration, so they do not conflict with the no-decoration rule (invariant #9). - Variable names follow paper notation where that stays readable.
- Standard components are imports: "standard transformer encoder" means a library call plus a dependency note, never a rewrite.
- Scope is the core contribution only, unless training / data / evaluation pipelines are explicitly requested. No baselines, no infrastructure beyond what the contribution needs.
Stage 3 — verification, split by oracle class
- Mechanizable class (external validators): shape checks, conservation or sanity equations stated in the paper, a toy-dimension forward pass on CPU. Run them and paste outputs — claimed completion requires executed machine-checkable evidence (invariant #23).
- Judgment class ("did we implement what they meant"): present the audit table and every divergence to the developer; their sign-off closes it.
- Never claim correctness of the method itself. The implementation matches the text; if the paper is wrong, the code is faithfully wrong — say so in those words.
Output contract
- Ambiguity audit table. 2. Code. 3. Verification outputs. 4. Open QUESTIONs. BLUF at every step.
Counter: when the developer explicitly asks for a quick sketch, pseudocode, or intuition-level walkthrough, the full audit is overhead — state in one line what is being skipped and sketch.
Provenance: discipline distilled from the paper2code pattern (PrathamLearnsToCode/paper2code, surfaced via the ai-boost/awesome-prompts digest); this text is written from scratch for the neuro-matrix harness — no upstream text reused.