# Papers Library > Use when adding a paper to the library, citing a paper while writing, or scanning a manuscript for citations. Triggers on "add this paper to the library", "summarize this paper for the library", "cite X here", "scan this grant for citations", a DOI or PDF offered for ingestion, or any work inside ~/repos/papers. NOT for reading a paper to understand it without recording it (use paper-reader), sourcing parameters with citations (use researcher), or multi-stage literature reviews (use lit-pm). - Skill: `dangeles/papers-library` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add dangeles/papers-library` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/dangeles/papers-library/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: dangeles (https://skillmd.com/u/dangeles) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/dangeles/papers-library --- # Papers Library Announce: "I'm using the papers-library skill." The library lives at `~/repos/papers`. **Read `~/repos/papers/CLAUDE.md` before acting** — it holds the full protocol. `~/repos/papers/RECIPE.md` holds the summary format. This skill exists so those are reachable from any repo; it does not duplicate them. There is no bare `python` on this machine. Run the tools through the repo venv, which works from any directory: ```bash ~/repos/papers/.venv/bin/python ~/repos/papers/tools/validate.py ``` ## Which flow are you in? **The user handed you a paper** ("add this", "summarize this for the library", a bare DOI or PDF path) → ingest. Resolve the DOI, fetch metadata from OpenAlex rather than transcribing it, work down the fetch ladder in `CLAUDE.md` until you have the best artifact available, write the sections per the recipe, run `tools/hmp.py`, then `tools/validate.py`. If what you read was not a PDF held in `pdfs/`, say which artifact it was under `## Full Text Source`. **The user wants an entry checked** ("does this still hold", "check these against their PDFs") → verify. Re-run the fetch ladder, read the new artifact, and correct the entry against it — figure panels first, since a rendering hides the p-values printed on them. Every factual correction this library has made came out of that step. **The user is writing and wants a citation** ("cite Igarashi for the OSM point") → this is the flow that makes the library worth having. Insert the citation into the manuscript in its native format *and* append the `Cited For` entry to the library file in the same step, with `cited_by_count` and `cited_by_sources` updated to match — the validator errors when they disagree. Don't defer it. If the paper isn't in the library, create a stub and say so. **The user points at a manuscript** ("scan my grant") → `tools/scan.py `. Idempotent; safe to re-run. **The user wants an entry changed** ("apply the requests on X", "fix the stats block") → edit in place, bump `updated:`, leave `## Cited For` untouched, and re-run `hmp.py` if the stats block moved. ## The rules that matter most Never hand-write `hmp` or `flags` — run `tools/hmp.py ` on the named file. A guessed harmonic mean p-value looks like knowledge and isn't, and `validate.py` will catch it anyway. Never delete anything under `## Cited For`. It is append-and-update only. Never crawl reference lists. The user curates this library. Reading a paper may surface at most two papers its own authors flag as essential; record them in `suggested:` and create nothing. Never claim to have read a full text you couldn't get — that's what `status: abstract-only` is for. Finish by running `.venv/bin/python tools/validate.py` in the repo. Zero errors, or the work isn't done. ## Finding things ```bash grep -rl "oncostatin" ~/repos/papers/papers/ grep -rn "equivalence_from_nonsignificance" ~/repos/papers/papers/ ``` ## Adjacent skills - `paper-reader` — understanding a paper without recording it in the library. - `researcher` — extracting parameters with citations for a model or calculation. - `lit-pm` — a comprehensive review across many papers.