Community recipe

Triage papers before a section-grounded reading

Researchers need to decide which parts of a paper deserve close reading before committing to the full text.

Read original recipe

Proposed inputs

Name
Reading question and paper identity
Owner
Researcher
Minimum scope
Specific question, title/identifier and intended version
Quality check
Confirm whether the goal is triage or detailed appraisal.
Name
Authorized paper material
Owner
Researcher
Minimum scope
Abstract, section map and selected source excerpts
Quality check
Check version consistency and which sections are actually available.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum: Read-only supplied paper material and a private version-labelled note.
Compatibility unknowns: Unknown: exact runtime, source retrieval, LaTeX availability and cache behavior.
External actions requiring approval: Expanding into full-paper reading beyond the agreed stage or sharing restricted paper content.

Detailed steps and output format

At a glance

Suggested result: Section-grounded paper notes with cached source context.Suggested; untested.
Tool: OpenClaw with PrismerSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs: Reading question and paper identity; Authorized paper materialProposed; access notes below.
Human review: Approve any private reading-list sharing and verify scientific claims against the complete paper.Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes: Read-only supplied paper material and a private version-labelled note.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 and scope

Research · Single task

Editorial classification; no execution or compatibility test is implied.

No tool mapping reviewed for this task.

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

The problem

Researchers need to decide which parts of a paper deserve close reading before committing to the full text.

Suggested task

Fetch abstracts and section structure, retrieve versioned source material and perform selective analysis.

What you could produce

Section-grounded paper notes with cached source context.

Where these suggestions come from

Core problem: Our interpretation of the task
Agent job: Our interpretation of the task
Expected output: Our interpretation of the task
Relevant job roles: Our interpretation of the task
Benefit type: Our interpretation of the task

Suggestions and their limits

Describes the task’s purpose and intended output; measured benefit, safe unsupervised operation and successful delivery are not established by this framing.

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

Before you try it · suggestions untested

Case-specific decision guidance and first checks are original proposals. The linked source supports the attributed task; this added guidance has not been executed.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

A researcher deciding whether to read a paper closely may need more than its abstract but less than a full review. Notes can become misleading if they combine sections from different versions or describe a result without its stated limitations.
A staged reading brief could identify which sections address the researcher’s question and what remains unread. Keeping version and section references visible would support a deliberate choice about further reading rather than implying comprehensive understanding.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment: Map a research question to relevant sections and distinguish abstract claims from supporting detail.
Simpler alternative: Read the abstract and contents manually for a single short paper.
Unsuitable when: The requested conclusion requires full methods or evidence that has not been reviewed.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact: Section-grounded triage notes with relevance, evidence limits and proposed next reading choices.
Critical checks: Each observation points to the reviewed version and section.
Unread material is not represented as assessed.
Missing output evidence: No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status: proposed_unexecuted
Synthetic fixture: An invented paper packet contains an abstract from a revised version and methods from an earlier version.
Acceptance checks: The mismatch blocks a combined assessment.
The next-step note requests a consistent version before deeper reading.
Stop conditions: Full-text permission or missing methods must be assumed.

Tasks: Research & discovery Documents & files Data & analysis

Useful for: Researcher Student

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

OpenClaw with PrismerIndependent testing: No

Failure handling, costs and limits

Failure signals and proposed responses

Signal
Cached methods come from an older revision than the abstract.
Why it matters
The notes may describe a study that no longer matches the claims.
Proposed response
Separate versions and obtain a consistent source set.
Signal
An abstract claim becomes an unqualified finding in the notes.
Why it matters
Triage may be mistaken for critical appraisal.
Proposed response
Attribute it as a claim and identify the section needed to evaluate it.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work: Define the reading question and authoritative paper version.
Ongoing review: Check section coverage before extending conclusions.
Unknowns: Unknown: retrieval rights, source completeness and reading effort.

Limits

Editorial reading aid; no scientific validity or comprehensive paper review is established.

Full source evidence

Community recipe · Tool workflows

Original task title: Triage papers before a section-grounded reading

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/Prismer-AI/Prismer/blob/main/skills/arxiv-reader/SKILL.md ↗

Attributed to: Prismer.AI

Community recipe

Original action type: tool_action
What the source reports: Fetches abstracts, surveys sections and retrieves versioned LaTeX sources for selective paper analysis with local caching.
Source outcome limits: This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Evidence attribution caveat: This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description: The OpenClaw workflow asks whether to read the full paper after abstract review.
Named tools: arxiv_abstract; arxiv_sections; arxiv_fetch; arXiv Atom API; optional Prismer server
Model or version: Unknown
Publication date: Unknown
Source last checked: 2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada: Unknown
Canadian availability: Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation: Check language and discipline fit for Canadian research use; retain exact paper version and source links.
Recommended approval boundaries: Approve any private reading-list sharing and verify scientific claims against the complete paper.