Back to list
oaustegard

reviewing-ai-papers

by oaustegard

My collection of Claude skills

30🍴 2📅 Jan 24, 2026

SKILL.md


name: reviewing-ai-papers description: Analyze AI/ML technical content (papers, articles, blog posts) and extract actionable insights filtered through enterprise AI engineering lens. Use when user provides URL/document for AI/ML content analysis, asks to "review this paper", or mentions technical content in domains like RAG, embeddings, fine-tuning, prompt engineering, LLM deployment. metadata: version: 0.1.0

Reviewing AI Papers

When users request analysis of AI/ML technical content (papers, articles, blog posts), extract actionable insights filtered through an enterprise AI engineering lens and store valuable discoveries to memory for cross-session recall.

Contextual Priorities

Technical Architecture:

  • RAG systems (semantic/lexical search, hybrid retrieval)
  • Vector database optimization and embedding strategies
  • Model fine-tuning for specialized scientific domains
  • Knowledge distillation for secure on-premise deployment

Implementation & Operations:

  • Prompt engineering and in-context learning techniques
  • Security and IP protection in AI systems
  • Scientific accuracy and hallucination mitigation
  • AWS integration (Bedrock/SageMaker)

Enterprise & Adoption:

  • Enterprise deployment in regulated environments
  • Building trust with scientific/legal stakeholders
  • Internal customer success strategies
  • Build vs. buy decision frameworks

Analytical Standards

  • Maintain objectivity: Extract factual insights without amplifying source hype
  • Challenge novelty claims: Identify what practitioners already use as baselines. Distinguish "applies existing techniques" from "genuinely new methods"
  • Separate rigor from novelty: Well-executed study of standard techniques ≠ methodological breakthrough
  • Confidence transparency: Distinguish established facts, emerging trends, speculative claims
  • Contextual filtering: Prioritize insights mapping to current challenges

Analysis Structure

For Substantive Content

Article Assessment (2-3 sentences)

  • Core topic and primary claims
  • Credibility: author expertise, evidence quality, methodology rigor

Prioritized Insights

  • High Priority: Direct applications to active projects
  • Medium Priority: Adjacent technologies worth monitoring
  • Low Priority: Interesting but not immediately actionable

Technical Evaluation

  • Distinguish novel methods from standard practice presented as innovation
  • Flag implementation challenges, risks, resource requirements
  • Note contradictions with established best practices

Actionable Recommendations

  • Research deeper: Specific areas requiring investigation
  • Evaluate for implementation: Techniques worth prototyping
  • Share with teams: Which teams benefit from this content
  • Monitor trends: Emerging areas to track

Immediate Applications Map insights to current projects. Identify quick wins or POC opportunities.

For Thin Content

  • State limitations upfront
  • Extract marginal insights if any
  • Recommend alternatives if topic matters
  • Keep brief

Memory Integration

Automatic storage triggers:

  • High-priority insights (directly applicable)
  • Novel techniques worth prototyping
  • Pattern recognitions across papers
  • Contradictions to established practice

Storage format:

remember(
    "[Source: {title or url}] {condensed insight}",
    "world",
    tags=["paper-insight", "{domain}", "{technique}"],
    conf=0.85  # higher for strong evidence
)

Compression rule:

  • Full analysis → conversation (what user sees)
  • Condensed insight → memory (searchable nugget with attribution)
  • Store the actionable kernel, not the whole analysis

Example:

Analysis says: "Hybrid retrieval (BM25 + dense) shows 23% improvement over pure semantic search for scientific queries. Two-stage approach..."

Store as: "[Source: arxiv.org/abs/2401.xxxxx] Hybrid BM25+dense retrieval: 23% lift over semantic-only for scientific corpora. Requires 10K+ domain examples for fine-tuning benefit."

Tags: ["paper-insight", "rag", "hybrid-retrieval", "scientific-domain"]

Output Standards

  • Conciseness: Actionable insights, not content restatement
  • Precision: Distinguish demonstrates/suggests/claims/speculates
  • Relevance: Connect to focus areas or state no connection
  • Adaptive depth: Match length to content value

Constraints

  • No hype amplification
  • No timelines unless requested
  • No speculation beyond article
  • Note contradictions explicitly
  • State limitations on thin content

Score

Total Score

65/100

Based on repository quality metrics

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

1ヶ月以内に更新

+10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

+5

Reviews

💬

Reviews coming soon