Triage paper

Triage Paper

Add a new academic paper to the research repo as a structured reference summary.

When to Use

• User provides an arxiv ID (e.g. 2310.08560), arxiv URL, or paper PDF path
• User says "triage this paper", "add this paper", or "analyse this paper"
• Evaluating whether a paper belongs in the repo

When Not to Use

• The paper has already been triaged (check REVIEWED.md first)
• The paper is clearly out of scope (not related to the research domain)
• User wants a full deep-dive analysis — use triage-paper first, then promote to ANALYSIS-*.md

Recommended MCP Servers

When available, prefer these MCPs over WebFetch for paper discovery and metadata resolution — they return structured data and avoid HTML scraping.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "semantic-scholar": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["semantic-scholar-fastmcp"]
    },
    "google-scholar": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["google_scholar_mcp_server"]
    }
  }
}

Use semantic-scholar as the primary source (open, structured, covers most CS/ML papers). Fall back to google-scholar for papers not indexed there. Fall back to WebFetch (arxiv abstract page) only when neither MCP is configured or returns results.

Mindset

Triage is a quality gate, not a data-entry task. The goal is a scannable, honest record.

1. Evidence first: quote what the paper reports; never infer or embellish claims.
2. Triage-then-promote: every paper enters via REVIEWED.md; promotion to ANALYSIS-*.md requires a deliberate user decision — never automatic.
3. Scope over completeness: a well-reasoned rejection is as valuable as a full summary. If the paper is tangentially related, triage it and flag it; don't silently skip it.

Workflow

1. Resolve the source

• If given an arxiv ID or URL: use the semantic-scholar MCP to resolve metadata (title, authors, date, abstract, DOI). If not configured, fall back to WebFetch on the arxiv abstract page.
• If given a DOI: prefer semantic-scholar or google-scholar MCP over a raw HTTP fetch.
• If given a PDF path, read it to extract the same fields.
• Derive a stable slug: <firstauthor-surname>-<2-3-word-topic> (e.g. jiang-llmlingua, press-longchat).

2. Check for duplicates

• Search REVIEWED.md and references/REFERENCE_INDEX.md for the slug or arxiv ID.
• If already present, report it and stop.

3. Classify the paper

Assign one or more tags appropriate to the research domain. Universal tags:

Tag	Meaning
survey	Overview paper covering the topic broadly
benchmark	Evaluation dataset or framework
empirical	Study with experimental evaluation
theoretical	Formal or theoretical contribution
system	System or implementation paper

4. Fill in the reference summary

Read assets/templates/REFERENCE-paper.yaml to get the required frontmatter fields and section structure. Create references/<slug>.md with a YAML frontmatter block (all required_fields from the template) followed by the required sections.

Populate every section:

• TL;DR: 3–8 bullets capturing what the paper does and why it matters.
• What's novel: one paragraph — what does this do that adjacent work does not?
• Mechanism overview: describe the core approach and methodology. Skip sections that are not applicable (mark N/A).
• Evaluation: quote benchmark name, baselines, key metric, and result — always mark (as reported).
• Implementation details worth stealing: concrete takeaways only.
• Open questions: gaps, risks, unverified claims.

Keep language precise. Do not pad. Quote all numbers with their source.

5. Update REVIEWED.md

Add a row to the summary table at the top (reverse-chronological):

| <today's date> | <slug> | paper | pending | <one-line description> |

Add a detailed section below the table:

## <slug> — <Full paper title>

- **arxiv**: <ID>
- **Authors**: <list>
- **Date**: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- **Tags**: <tags>
- **Summary**: <2–3 sentences>
- **Disposition**: pending — awaiting user decision on promotion

6. Update REFERENCE_INDEX.md

Add a row under the most relevant category table. If no category fits, add it to the closest one and note it for the user.

7. Report and offer next step

Summarise what was created. Then ask:

This paper is now in REVIEWED.md as pending. Would you like to:

• Promote it to a standalone ANALYSIS-arxiv-<id>-<slug>.md deep dive?
• Keep it in REVIEWED.md for now?
• Skip it (mark as not promoted with reasoning)?

8. If user confirms promotion

Read assets/templates/ANALYSIS-paper.yaml to get the required frontmatter fields and section structure. Create analysis/ANALYSIS-arxiv-<id>-<slug>.md with a YAML frontmatter block (all required_fields from the template) followed by the required stage sections. Update the disposition in REVIEWED.md from pending to analysis.

Quick Commands

# Check for duplicate before starting
grep -i "<arxiv-id-or-slug>" REVIEWED.md references/REFERENCE_INDEX.md

# Fetch arxiv abstract (title, authors, date)
curl -s "https://arxiv.org/abs/<id>"

# Create reference file from template
cp templates/REFERENCE-paper.md references/<slug>.md

# Validate the completed file
./scripts/validate-reference-paper.sh references/<slug>.md
./scripts/validate-analysis-paper.sh ANALYSIS-arxiv-<id>-<slug>.md

# | YYYY-MM-DD | <slug> | paper | pending | <one-line description> |

Anti-Patterns

NEVER omit YAML frontmatter

WHY: Files without frontmatter fail schema validation and break indexing tools that rely on structured metadata.

BAD Start the file with # ANALYSIS: <slug> followed by bold-text fields. → GOOD Open with --- YAML frontmatter block containing all required fields before any prose.

NEVER invent benchmark numbers

WHY: Fabricated metrics corrupt the research record.

BAD "Achieves 87% recall on LongMemEval." → GOOD "Reports 87% recall on LongMemEval (as reported, Table 3)."

NEVER skip the duplicate check

WHY: Re-triaging the same paper wastes effort and creates conflicting entries.

BAD Create new file without checking REVIEWED.md. → GOOD Run grep -i "<slug>" REVIEWED.md references/REFERENCE_INDEX.md first.

NEVER promote without user confirmation

WHY: Promotion to ANALYSIS-*.md is a quality gate, not automatic.

BAD Create ANALYSIS-*.md as part of triage. → GOOD Triage to REVIEWED.md, then ask the user.

References

• Reference artifacts: YAML template · schema · validator
• Analysis artifacts: YAML template · schema · validator