research-wiki
Skill16 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Persistent research knowledge base that accumulates papers, ideas, experiments, claims, and their relationships across the entire research lifecycle. Inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern. Use when user says \"知识库\", \"research wiki\", \"add paper\", \"wiki query\", \"查知识库\", or wants to build/query a persistent field map.
- Deletes or force-pushes
- Installs packages
8 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgentedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- yvesory/academic-research-suiteedited, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- udecode/better-convextheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- talhaMah56/claude_skillsedited, first seen Sep 12, 2026
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleepedited, first seen Jul 15, 2026
- Immortalqx/my_codex_skillsedited, first seen Jun 10, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep★ 19k51% same
- Immortalqx/my_codex_skills★ 5439% same
- sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent★ 3553% same
- yvesory/academic-research-suite★ 953% same
- raja21068/AutoResearch★ 272% same
- talhaMah56/claude_skills★ 051% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- udecode/better-convex★ 452same name
- YuchengZhang256/claude-code-workflow★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository56 other files it gives its agents.
- argument-stress-testSkill
- citation-auditSkill
- comm-lit-review-claude-singleSkill
- comparative-lawSkill
- exa-searchSkill
- feishu-notifySkill
- figure-descriptionSkill
- figure-specSkill
- formula-derivationSkill
- grant-proposalSkill
- legal-writingSkill
- llm-wikiSkill
- mermaid-diagramSkill
- novelty-checkSkill
- overleaf-syncSkill
- paper-claim-auditSkill
- paper-compileSkill
- paper-figureSkill
- paper-illustrationSkill
- paper-planSkill
- paper-posterSkill
- paper-slidesSkill
- paper-writeSkill
- paper-writingSkill
- prism-pipelineSkill
- proof-checkerSkill
- proof-writerSkill
- rebuttalSkill
- research-litSkill
- research-pipelineSkill
- research-refine-pipelineSkill
- research-refineSkill
- research-reviewSkill
- semantic-scholarSkill
- comm-lit-reviewSkill
- feishu-notifySkill
- formula-derivationSkill
- grant-proposalSkill
- mermaid-diagramSkill
- novelty-checkSkill
- paper-compileSkill
- paper-figureSkill
- paper-illustrationSkill
- paper-planSkill
- paper-posterSkill
- paper-slidesSkill
- paper-writeSkill
- paper-writingSkill
- proof-writerSkill
- rebuttalSkill
- research-litSkill
- research-pipelineSkill
- research-refine-pipelineSkill
- research-refineSkill
- research-reviewSkill
- statute-case-mapperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 4 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
4
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 70
Create research-wiki/ directory structure
- Very specific: line 71
Create empty index.md, log.md, gap_map.md
- Very specific: line 77
Add a paper to the wiki. This subcommand is thin wrapping around the canonical helper python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper …, which …
- Common: line 240
Key rule: Read from short fields only (frontmatter, one-line thesis, gap summary, failure note).
- Common: line 244
Update a specific entity:
- Very specific: line 252
After any update: rebuild query_pack.md, update log.md.
- Very specific: line 284
All paper-reading skills follow the same integration contract (see shared-references/integration-contract.md):
- Very specific: line 368
After significant wiki updates, suggest re-running /research-refine:
- Common: line 381
Failed ideas are the most valuable memory: Never prune them from query_pack.
- Common: line 384
Reviewer independence applies: When the wiki is read by cross-model review skills, pass file paths only — do not summarize wiki content for …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Research Wiki: Persistent Research Knowledge Base
Subcommand: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
The research wiki is a persistent, per-project knowledge base that accumulates structured knowledge across the entire Prism research lifecycle. Unlike one-off literature surveys that are used and forgotten, the wiki compounds — every paper read, idea tested, experiment run, and review received makes the wiki smarter.
Inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern: compile knowledge once, keep it current, don't re-derive on every query.
Core Concepts
Four Entity Types
| Entity | Directory | Node ID format | What it represents |
| Paper | papers/ | paper:<slug> | A published or preprint research paper |
| Idea | ideas/ | idea:<id> | A research idea (proposed, tested, or failed) |
| Experiment | experiments/ | exp:<id> | A concrete experiment run with results |
| Claim | claims/ | claim:<id> | A testable scientific claim with evidence status |
Typed Relationships (graph/edges.jsonl)
| Edge type | From → To | Meaning |
extends | paper → paper | Builds on prior work |
contradicts | paper → paper | Disagrees with results/claims |
addresses_gap | paper|idea → gap | Targets a known field gap |
inspired_by | idea → paper | Idea sourced from this paper |
tested_by | idea|claim → exp | Tested in this experiment |
supports | exp → claim|idea | Experiment confirms claim |
invalidates | exp → claim|idea | Experiment disproves claim |
supersedes | paper → paper | Newer work replaces older |
Edges are stored in graph/edges.jsonl only. The ## Connections section on each page is auto-generated from the graph — never hand-edit it.
Wiki Directory Structure
research-wiki/
index.md # categorical index (auto-generated)
log.md # append-only timeline
gap_map.md # field gaps with stable IDs (G1, G2, ...)
query_pack.md # compressed summary for /research-refine (auto-generated, max 8000 chars)
papers/
<slug>.md # one page per paper
ideas/
<idea_id>.md # one page per idea
experiments/
<exp_id>.md # one page per experiment
claims/
<claim_id>.md # one page per testable claim
graph/
edges.jsonl # materialized current relationship graphSubcommands
/research-wiki init
Initialize the wiki for the current project:
- Create
research-wiki/directory structure - Create empty
index.md,log.md,gap_map.md - Create empty
graph/edges.jsonl - Log: "Wiki initialized"
/research-wiki ingest "<paper title>" — arxiv: <id>
Add a paper to the wiki. This subcommand is thin wrapping around the
canonical helper python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper …, which
is the single implementation of paper ingest in Prism (per
shared-references/integration-contract.md
— one helper, no copies). The helper does all of:
- Fetch metadata — queries the arXiv Atom API when
--arxiv-idis given - Generate slug —
<first_author_last_name><year>_<keyword> - Check dedup — skip an existing page unless
--update-on-exist - Create page —
papers/<slug>.mdwith the schema below - Rebuild
index.mdandquery_pack.md - Append
log.md
Edge extraction (step 5/8 in the old manual flow) is not in
ingest_paper; do it as a follow-up with add_edge per relationship
identified:
# arXiv-known paper
python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper research-wiki/ \
--arxiv-id 2501.12345 --thesis "One-line claim from abstract."
# Venue paper with no arXiv mirror
python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper research-wiki/ \
--title "Attention Is All You Need" \
--authors "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, …" --year 2017 --venue "NeurIPS"
# Manual edge after ingest
python3 tools/research_wiki.py add_edge research-wiki/ \
--from "paper:vaswani2017_attention_all_you" \
--to "paper:chen2025_factorized_gap" \
--type "extends" --evidence "Section 3.2: adapts the encoder block …"Other skills (/research-lit, /semantic-scholar, /exa-search) call the same helper directly in
their own last step — they don't re-route through /research-wiki
ingest as a subcommand, so they don't need an LLM roundtrip.
Local PDF ingest (born-digital vs. hard PDFs)
For a paper you have as a local PDF (no arXiv/venue metadata to fetch),
the default path is to read the PDF with the agent's own multimodal Read
tool and supply --title/--authors/--year/--venue/--thesis to
ingest_paper. This needs no dependencies and works for born-digital text.
For the hard cases — scanned court judgments, multi-column legal/academic layouts, table-dense pages, formula-heavy text — agent-native reading can mis-order columns or drop tables. Prism ships an optional bridge to MinerU that converts such PDFs to clean Markdown first:
# Probe once; exit 3 means MinerU is not installed -> just read the PDF natively.
python3 tools/pdf_extract.py --check
# Convert a hard PDF to Markdown, then read that .md instead of the raw PDF.
python3 tools/pdf_extract.py "path/to/judgment.pdf" --print > /tmp/judgment.mdMinerU is not a Prism dependency. The script falls back cleanly (exit
code 3) when it is absent, so the zero-dependency core is untouched. Install
only if you need it: pip install mineru. Use it selectively for scanned /
multi-column / table- or formula-heavy PDFs — for ordinary born-digital
papers, native reading is faster and good enough.
/research-wiki sync — arxiv-ids <id1>,<id2>,...
Batch backfill: ingest one or more arXiv IDs that were read earlier
without being ingested (e.g., because research-wiki/ was set up after
the reading happened, or a hook didn't fire).
# Explicit list
python3 tools/research_wiki.py sync research-wiki/ \
--arxiv-ids 2310.06770,1706.03762
# From a file (one id per line, # comments ok)
python3 tools/research_wiki.py sync research-wiki/ --from-file ids.txtDedup is handled per-id; already-ingested papers are skipped silently.
This is the recommended manual repair step (see integration
contract §5 Backfill). sync does not scan session traces — callers
declare the ids explicitly.
Paper page schema (exactly what ingest_paper emits — do not
handwrite alternative fields; lint will flag drift):
---
type: paper
node_id: paper:<slug>
title: "<full title>"
authors: ["First A. Author", "Second B. Author"]
year: 2025
venue: "arXiv"
external_ids:
arxiv: "2501.12345"
doi: null
s2: null
tags: ["tag1", "tag2"]
added: 2026-04-07T10:12:00Z
---
# <full title>
## One-line thesis
[Single sentence capturing the paper's core contribution]
## Problem / Gap
## Method
## Key Results
## Assumptions
## Limitations / Failure Modes
## Reusable Ingredients
[Techniques, datasets, or insights that could be repurposed]
## Open Questions
## Claims
[Reference claim pages: claim:C1, claim:C2, etc.]
## Connections
[AUTO-GENERATED from graph/edges.jsonl — do not edit manually]
## Relevance to This Project
[Why this paper matters for our specific research direction]Additionally, when the paper was ingested via --arxiv-id and the arXiv
API returned an abstract, the helper appends an ## Abstract (original)
section after Relevance to This Project containing the raw abstract
text as a blockquote. Manual ingests (no --arxiv-id) do not include
this section.
/research-wiki query "<topic>"
Generate query_pack.md — a compressed, context-window-friendly summary:
Fixed budget (max 8000 chars / ~2000 tokens):
| Section | Budget | Content |
| Project direction | 300 chars | From CLAUDE.md or RESEARCH_BRIEF.md |
| Top 5 gaps | 1200 chars | From gap_map.md, ranked by: unresolved + linked ideas + failed experiments |
| Paper clusters | 1600 chars | 3-5 clusters by tag overlap, 2-3 sentences each |
| Failed ideas | 1400 chars | Always included — highest anti-repetition value |
| Top papers | 1800 chars | 8-12 pages ranked by: linked gaps, linked ideas, centrality, relevance flag |
| Active chains | 900 chars | limitation → opportunity relationship chains |
| Open unknowns | 500 chars | Unresolved questions across the wiki |
Pruning priority (when over budget): low-ranked papers > cluster detail > chain detail. Never prune failed ideas or top gaps first.
Key rule: Read from short fields only (frontmatter, one-line thesis, gap summary, failure note). Do not summarize full page bodies every time.
/research-wiki update <node_id> — <field>: <value>
Update a specific entity:
/research-wiki update paper:chen2025 — relevance: core
/research-wiki update idea:001 — outcome: negative
/research-wiki update claim:C1 — status: invalidatedAfter any update: rebuild query_pack.md, update log.md.
/research-wiki lint
Health check the wiki:
- Orphan pages — entities with zero edges
- Stale claims — claims with
status: reportedolder than 14 days - Contradictions — claims with both
supportsandinvalidatesedges - Missing connections — papers sharing 2+ tags but no explicit relationship
- Dead ideas —
stage: proposedideas that were never tested - Sparse pages — pages with 3+ empty sections
Output a LINT_REPORT.md with suggested fixes.
/research-wiki stats
Quick overview:
📚 Research Wiki Stats
Papers: 28 (12 core, 10 related, 6 peripheral)
Ideas: 7 (2 active, 3 failed, 1 partial, 1 succeeded)
Experiments: 12
Claims: 15 (5 supported, 3 invalidated, 7 reported)
Edges: 64
Gaps: 8 (3 unresolved)
Last updated: 2026-04-07T10:12:00ZIntegration with Existing Workflows
All paper-reading skills follow the same integration contract (see
shared-references/integration-contract.md):
- single predicate —
[ -d research-wiki/ ] - single canonical helper —
python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper … - concrete artifact —
papers/<slug>.md+log.mdentry - backfill —
sync --arxiv-ids … - diagnostic —
tools/verify_wiki_coverage.sh
Hook 1: After /research-lit finds papers
# At end of research-lit, after synthesis:
if research-wiki/ exists:
for paper in top_relevant_papers (limit 8-12):
python3 tools/research_wiki.py ingest_paper research-wiki/ \
--arxiv-id <id> [--thesis "..."] [--tags "..."]
for each explicit relation to existing wiki paper:
python3 tools/research_wiki.py add_edge research-wiki/ \
--from "paper:<slug>" --to "<target>" \
--type <extends|contradicts|addresses_gap|...> \
--evidence "..."
log "research-lit ingested N papers"Each paper-reading skill ships its own Step "Update Research Wiki (if active)" that calls the same helper once per paper it touched. The business logic is not duplicated — only the loop over that skill's specific result set differs.
Hook 2: /research-refine reads AND writes wiki
Before research-question formulation:
if research-wiki/query_pack.md exists (and < 7 days old):
prepend query_pack to landscape context
treat failed questions/theses as banlist
treat top gaps as search seeds
still run fresh literature search for foundational + recent worksAfter formulation (THIS IS CRITICAL — without it, ideas/ stays empty):
for question in all_candidate_questions (kept + rejected):
/research-wiki upsert_idea(question)
for source_id in question.based_on:
add_edge(question.node_id, source_id, "inspired_by")
for gap_id in question.target_gaps:
add_edge(question.node_id, gap_id, "addresses_gap")
rebuild query_pack
log "research-refine wrote N candidate questions to wiki"Hook 3: After /argument-stress-test verdict
# Create experiment page
exp_id = upsert_experiment(experiment_data)
# Update each claim's status
for claim_id in resolved_claims:
if verdict == "yes":
set_claim_status(claim_id, "supported")
add_edge(exp_id, claim_id, "supports")
elif verdict == "partial":
set_claim_status(claim_id, "partial")
add_edge(exp_id, claim_id, "supports") # partial
else:
set_claim_status(claim_id, "invalidated")
add_edge(exp_id, claim_id, "invalidates")
# Update idea outcome
update_idea(active_idea_id, outcome=verdict)
# If failed, record WHY for future ideation
if verdict in ("no", "partial"):
update_idea failure_notes with specific metrics and reasons
rebuild query_pack
log "argument-stress-test: exp_id updated, verdict=..."Re-ideation Trigger
After significant wiki updates, suggest re-running /research-refine:
- ≥5 new sources ingested since last formulation
- ≥3 new failed/partial questions since last formulation
- New contradiction discovered in the graph
- New gap identified that no existing idea addresses
The system suggests but does not auto-trigger. User decides.
Key Rules
- One source of truth for relationships:
graph/edges.jsonl. PageConnectionssections are auto-generated views. - Canonical node IDs everywhere:
paper:<slug>,idea:<id>,exp:<id>,claim:<id>,gap:<id>. Never use raw titles or inconsistent shorthands. - Failed ideas are the most valuable memory. Never prune them from query_pack.
- query_pack.md is hard-budgeted at 8000 chars. Deterministic generation, not open-ended summarization.
- Append to log.md for every mutation. The log is the audit trail.
- Reviewer independence applies. When the wiki is read by cross-model review skills, pass file paths only — do not summarize wiki content for the reviewer.
Acknowledgements
Inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki — "compile knowledge once, keep it current, don't re-derive on every query."
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

