Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Quick landscape scan — discover papers on a topic without full-text reading
.claude/skills/yogsoth-ai-literature-overview/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 45% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 4% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 280% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -1% | 0% |
| case-22 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 36% | 0% |
Fast landscape scan. Understand what papers exist on a topic, who the key authors are, and rough citation counts. No full-text reading. This skill is for orientation — getting a bird's-eye view before committing to deeper reading.
Use this when you need to:
| Tool | Purpose | Returns | |------|---------|---------| | alphaxiv.discover_papers | Semantic search for arXiv papers | Ranked paper list with title, abstract snippet, arXiv ID | | ss.relevanceSearch | Keyword search across all venues | Title, abstract, authors, year, citationCount, paperId |
<HARD-GATE> This skill returns abstracts and metadata ONLY.
Do NOT draw conclusions about:
Abstracts are for ORIENTATION — identifying what exists and what looks promising.
For any substantive analysis, escalate to:
literature-search — read AI-summarized reports (medium depth)literature-research — read raw full text (deep)Treating abstracts as sufficient for research conclusions is PROHIBITED. </HARD-GATE>
alphaxiv.discover_papers(
keywords: ["keyword1", "keyword2", "keyword3"],
question: "Detailed semantic description of desired papers",
difficulty: 3
)Parameters:
keywords: 3-4 concise terms (method names, acronyms, authors)question: Detailed description of what papers you're looking fordifficulty: 1-10 (use 3 for overview, higher = more retrieval effort)ss.relevanceSearch(
query: "search terms",
limit: 20,
year: "2022-2024",
fields_of_study: "Computer Science"
)Parameters:
query: keyword search stringlimit: max results (default 10, max 100)year: year range filter (e.g., "2023-2024", "2020-")fields_of_study: field filter (optional)min_citation_count: citation threshold (optional)open_access_only: boolean (optional)For each paper, present:
difficulty parameter: 1-3 for quick scans, 5-7 for thorough discovery, 8-10 for exhaustiveQuick scan: "graph neural networks for drug discovery"
# Step 1: arXiv search
alphaxiv.discover_papers(
keywords: ["GNN", "drug discovery", "molecular"],
question: "Papers applying graph neural networks to drug discovery and molecular property prediction",
difficulty: 3
)
# Step 2: Supplement
ss.relevanceSearch(
query: "graph neural network drug discovery",
limit: 15,
year: "2022-2024",
min_citation_count: 50
)
# Step 3-4: Merge, deduplicate, return sorted listExpected output: A list of 15-30 papers with titles, authors, years, and citation counts — enough to understand the landscape and pick papers for deeper reading.
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | literature-research | Deep literature research — raw full text reading and targeted PDF queries for rigorous analysis | | literature-search | Medium-depth literature search — read AI-summarized reports for every paper analyzed |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 22,795 | 86,183 | +278% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,451 | 1,908 | -45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 21,588 | 34,509 | +60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,708 | 1,897 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 18,664 | 33,695 | +81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,333 | 1,831 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 31,789 | 32,970 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,355 | 2,803 | -48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 54,420 | 30,563 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,246 | 2,045 | -75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 21,625 | 36,518 | +69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,777 | 4,128 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 7,999 | 28,160 | +252% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,610 | 2,330 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 18,472 | 8,634 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,124 | 1,834 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 19,775 | 13,240 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,145 | 2,223 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 15,810 | 27,186 | +72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,685 | 2,234 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 18,322 | 4,228 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,529 | 1,947 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 4,834 | 40,627 | +740% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 640 | 2,430 | +280% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 17,755 | 10,655 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,053 | 1,877 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 14,134 | 5,047 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,371 | 1,819 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 22,649 | 4,260 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,153 | 1,985 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 20,390 | 14,890 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,653 | 2,842 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→fail | 30,365 | 4,622 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 988 | 1,787 | +81% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 17,034 | 4,445 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,203 | 2,174 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,193 | 7,569 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,465 | 2,039 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 17,530 | 7,558 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,152 | 2,465 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 12,867 | 3,046 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 843 | 1,799 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 9,421 | 2,463 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,325 | 1,804 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 29,407 | 10,942 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,497 | 2,021 | -42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 12,747 | 3,265 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,045 | 1,703 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-25 | fail→pass | 6,651 | 5,698 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,167 | 1,580 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 25 cases were attempted, and 17 counted toward the lift figure. The other 8 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +20 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 17 comparable cases. 5 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.