Community recipe

Merge duplicate references while preserving research notes

Duplicate references split notes and attachments, but a careless merge can erase edition distinctions or disconnect research evidence.

Read original recipe

Proposed inputs

Name
Candidate pair
Owner
Library owner
Minimum scope
Two records and their child-item lists.
Quality check
Compare identifiers, versions and publication stages.
Name
Preservation checklist
Owner
Researcher
Minimum scope
Required notes, files and document references.
Quality check
Record counts and identifiers before any change.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum: Export/copy first; read-only preview on a narrow scope.
Compatibility unknowns: Unknown: installed client/server versions, sync state and external citation behaviour.
External actions requiring approval: Cloud data access, persistent credentials and each applied merge.

Detailed steps and output format

At a glance

Suggested result: A merge preview, retained-item map and post-change reconciliation.Suggested; untested.
Tool: Claude CodeSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs: Candidate pair; Preservation checklistProposed; access notes below.
Human review: Start from a recoverable export/copy. Ask the owner to approve master choice, conflicts, child transfers and the exact version-bound preview. Stop on changed versions or…
Read full note
Start from a recoverable export/copy. Ask the owner to approve master choice, conflicts, child transfers and the exact version-bound preview. Stop on changed versions or partial failure; do not permanently delete.
Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes: Export/copy first; read-only preview on a narrow scope.Guide notes; proposed setup untested.
Cost: Workflow cost not established. Check current tool pricing, setup and human review costs before trying it.No measured cost or time added.
Content depth: Source-linked example · suggestions untestedDepth does not establish successful execution.

Check source evidence and limits ↓

Function, scope and tools

Research, Administration · Single task

Editorial classification; no execution or compatibility test is implied.

Tools named by the original source ↓ · Source approval description ↓

Zotero

Tool and interface reported by the source; agent compatibility remains unknown and untested.

The binding covers underlying Web API primitives only. The reported third-party bridge is separate evidence, not an official MCP interface or a validated merge.

Registered interface: API. Agent compatibility: unknown. Independent tests: none.

Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.

The problem

Duplicate references split notes and attachments, but a careless merge can erase edition distinctions or disconnect research evidence.

Suggested task · untested

Prepare a narrowly scoped, owner-approved reference consolidation.

What you could produce

A merge preview, retained-item map and post-change reconciliation.

Where these suggestions come from

Core problem: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Agent job: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Expected output: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Relevant job roles: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Benefit type: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source

Suggestions and their limits

Describes the proposed purpose and review output; measured benefit and successful delivery are not established.

Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.

Before you try it · suggestions untested

Original decision guidance and synthetic first check. Source facts are reused by reference; nothing here was executed.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

Two records with similar titles may represent the same work, distinct editions or different publication stages. The person reviewing them needs to see the consequences for notes and attachments before choosing a master.
A careful preview could reduce clerical work while keeping ambiguous records apart. Success means preserving usable evidence and traceability, rather than merely making the item count smaller.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment: Explain metadata conflicts and distinguish likely duplicates from meaningful variants.
Simpler alternative: Use Zotero's manual duplicate interface for a small obvious pair.
Unsuitable when: There is no recoverable copy or document citation links cannot be checked.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact: Field-level preview and retained-ID evidence map.
Critical checks: All required child items remain accessible.
Conflicting editions stay separate; document references are checked.
Missing output evidence: No merge or citation-refresh test was performed.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status: proposed_unexecuted
Synthetic fixture: Disposable records with one shared identifier, distinct notes, two attachments, and one deliberate post-preview edit.
Acceptance checks: Changed version blocks application.
A new approved preview accounts for every child; no permanent deletion.
Stop conditions: Backup is missing, sync is unresolved or a publication distinction is uncertain.

Tasks: Research & discovery Documents & files

Useful for: Researcher Administrative assistant

Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.

Claude CodeIndependent testing: No

Failure handling, costs and limits

Failure signals and proposed responses

Signal
A record changes after approval.
Why it matters
The reviewed plan no longer describes the write.
Proposed response
Stop and obtain approval for a fresh version-bound preview.
Signal
A child transfer only partly completes.
Why it matters
Continuing cleanup could strand evidence.
Proposed response
Reconcile actual state before any retry; preserve recoverable records.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work: Back up the library and identify reference dependencies.
Ongoing review: Inspect merged records and refresh checked views.
Unknowns: Unknown: access cost, sync delay and recovery effort.

Limits

A smaller library is not proof of a correct merge; restoration and downstream citation behaviour need separate verification.

Full source evidence

Community recipe · Tool workflows

Original task title: Merge duplicate references while preserving research notes

Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.

Original source

https://github.com/oscardvs/zoteus/blob/main/plugins/zoteus/skills/library-upkeep/SKILL.md ↗

Attributed to: Oscar Devos / oscardvs

Supporting source context

Project documentation supporting the linked recipe’s scope, permissions and limits. These references do not establish an independent test or add counted jobs.

Community recipe

Original action type: tool_action
What the source reports: The Claude Code skill previews duplicate-record merges for owner review. Its linked procedure preserves missing fields, unions metadata and collections, reparents notes and attachments, records replacement relations, and trashes duplicates only after required moves. Version-bound application can stop on intervening changes.
Source outcome limits: A reviewed reference merge and change record, not a guarantee that citations remain valid in every external document. Inspect note/attachment ownership, distinct editions and reference use before proceeding.
Evidence attribution caveat: This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description: The skill requires approval before each write and again for broad changes. Merge previews are read-only by default; applying needs explicit dry_run:false. The detailed procedure recommends returning preview versions as expect_versions.
Named tools: Claude Code; Zoteus MCP zotero_merge_items; Zotero cloud Web API; versioned item and child records.
Model or version: Unknown
Publication date: Unknown
Source last checked: 2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada: Unknown
Canadian availability: Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation: Confirm institutional policy and permission for the specific library, especially shared collections. Keep unpublished research and restricted attachments out of an unapproved model or cloud flow.
Recommended approval boundaries: Start from a recoverable export/copy. Ask the owner to approve master choice, conflicts, child transfers and the exact version-bound preview. Stop on changed versions or partial failure; do not permanently delete.