paper-reader

Paper Reader

Overview

Analyze academic papers provided as PDF files, markdown files, or URLs. Asks which analysis type to run, then applies a specialized prompt template.

Input Handling

PDF: Use the Read tool to read the PDF. For large PDFs (>10 pages), read in chunks.
Markdown: Read the file directly.
URL: Use WebFetch to retrieve the paper content. If it's a PDF URL, download and read it.

If the user hasn't provided a paper yet, ask them to provide one (file path or URL).

Workflow

digraph paper_reader {
    "Paper provided?" [shape=diamond];
    "Ask for paper" [shape=box];
    "Read paper content" [shape=box];
    "Ask analysis type" [shape=box];
    "Run selected prompt" [shape=box];
    "Output analysis" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Paper provided?" -> "Ask for paper" [label="no"];
    "Paper provided?" -> "Read paper content" [label="yes"];
    "Ask for paper" -> "Read paper content";
    "Read paper content" -> "Ask analysis type";
    "Ask analysis type" -> "Run selected prompt";
    "Run selected prompt" -> "Output analysis";
    "Output analysis" -> "Save to markdown file";
    "Save to markdown file" [shape=box];
}

Analysis Types

When the paper is loaded, present this menu to the user:

Select analysis type:

Research Paper Analysis (In-depth analysis of a research paper) — Critical analysis covering background, methods, results, innovations, and limitations

Review Paper Analysis (In-depth analysis of a review paper) — Systematic evaluation of a review paper's scope, structure, and comprehensiveness

Enter number or name:

Output

After generating the analysis, save it as a markdown file in the same directory as the input paper:

Filename: <paper-filename>-analysis.md (e.g., smith2024-analysis.md)
If the paper was provided via URL, use the paper title (slugified) as the filename
Include a YAML frontmatter with: title, authors (if known), analysis type, and date

Prompt Templates

1. Research Paper Analysis

Output language: Simplified Chinese

Apply the following analysis framework to the paper:

Based on the content of the article, determine the field to which the article belongs. Please act as an expert in that field, take into account the historical context in which the literature was written, read the article with critical thinking, and conduct an in-depth analysis and summary of it.

Summarize the research background and outline the current state of research in its field, including what is known and what is unknown. Further clarify the specific scientific question that the study aims to explore, as well as the significance of addressing this scientific question.
Outline the article's research methods and materials, including the experimental design, data sources, and analysis methods, in order to evaluate the rationality and rigor of its methods.
Extract the research results and conclusions, summarize the core findings, and evaluate their scientific validity and reliability.
Analyze the article's innovations, including innovations in analytical methods, analytical approaches, and breakthroughs in scientific questions, and summarize the theoretical value and practical application value of the research in order to judge its academic or practical significance.
Point out the study's shortcomings, such as limitations in the experimental design, the sufficiency of the data, or issues with the generalizability of the conclusions, and propose suggestions for improvement.

Please ensure that the summary is concise and clear, and comprehensively evaluate the scientific validity, rationality, and impact of the research with critical thinking. Do not add citations to the summary, and answer in Simplified Chinese.

Formatting rules:

Inline formulas: $xxx$
Block formulas: $$xxx$$
Do NOT quote the original text directly

2. Review Paper Analysis

Output language: Simplified Chinese

Apply the following analysis framework to the review paper:

Based on the content of the article, determine the field to which the article belongs. Please act as an expert in that field, read this review with critical thinking, and conduct an in-depth analysis and summary of it.

Summarize the field reviewed by the article and its research scope, and clarify the core theme of the review and the main research directions involved.
Sort out the article's logical framework, analyze how the author organizes the content, and gradually develops the discussion.
Outline the main content of each key point, extract the core viewpoints, summarize the key information of each part, and evaluate the comprehensiveness and logic of its content.
Point out the review's strengths, such as the systematic nature of the content, the sufficiency of data support, or innovative perspectives, while also analyzing its possible weaknesses, such as bias in literature selection, insufficient depth of analysis, or inadequate discussion of future research directions, and propose suggestions for improvement.

Please ensure that the summary is concise and clear, and comprehensively evaluate the scientific validity, rationality, and impact of the review with critical thinking.