Paper Context Resolver

paper-context-resolver

Use this as the Rigor Paper Context helper. The installed slug remains paper-context-resolver for compatibility.

When to apply

• README and repo files leave a reproduction-critical gap.
• The gap concerns dataset version, split, preprocessing, evaluation protocol, checkpoint mapping, or runtime assumptions.
• The main skill needs a narrow evidence supplement instead of a full paper summary.
• There is already a concrete reproduction question to answer.

When not to apply

• The README already gives enough reproduction detail.
• The user wants a general paper explanation rather than reproduction support.
• The goal is to override README instructions without documenting the conflict.
• The only available input is a paper title and there is no concrete reproduction gap yet.

Clear boundaries

• This skill is optional.
• This skill is helper-tier and should usually be orchestrator-invoked.
• It supplements README-first reproduction.
• It does not replace the main orchestration flow.
• It does not summarize the whole paper by default.

Input expectations

• target repo metadata
• reproduction-critical question
• existing README or repo evidence
• any already known paper links

Output expectations

• narrowed source list
• reproduction-relevant answer only
• explicit README-paper conflict note when applicable
• clear distinction between direct evidence and inference

Notes

Use references/paper-assisted-reproduction.md.

Paper-Assisted Reproduction

Purpose

Use paper context only to unblock README-first reproduction when the repository leaves a critical gap.

Only invoke this step after README and repo inspection already produced a concrete unanswered question.

Source order

1. paper link explicitly provided by the README 2. official project page or official paper page 3. arXiv or OpenReview primary paper record 4. Google Scholar only to help locate the primary source

Allowed question types

• dataset version or split
• preprocessing or postprocessing details
• evaluation protocol details
• checkpoint or model variant mapping
• critical runtime assumptions

Trigger discipline

Good trigger:

• "README is ambiguous about the evaluation split. Check the linked paper and record the conflict if needed."

Bad trigger:

• "Summarize this paper."
• "Find the paper for this repository title and explain it."
• "Tell me everything the paper changed compared with prior work."

Default exclusions

• full paper summary
• novelty explanation
• broad related-work discussion
• speculative "best settings" not tied to reproduction

Conflict rule

If README and paper disagree:

• do not silently replace README
• record the conflict
• explain which source says what
• preserve the README-first policy in the final report