Menu

Individual skill

nature-paper-xray

0upvotes

Read one supplied paper closely enough to reconstruct how its authors actually got there, rather than restating what the abstract claims. Use for 精读论文, 讲透这篇论文, 把这篇读懂, 作者为什么这么设计, 这个公式怎么推出来的, paper x-ray, and deep single-paper comprehension before building on, reviewing, presenting, or citing that paper. Recovers the real starting point and the bet the authors placed, separates load-bearing design from decoration, grounds each key formula in a worked micro-example with concrete numbers, and checks how far the evidence actually reaches, including where the authors are confident and where the paper does not report something. Delivers a structured Markdown long-read by default. Not a summary, not a translation, not a peer review.

skills/nature-paper-xray/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit b6ae2cac022f4aac094d50f2938a3474ba315fbc

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
53,203
Repository last updated
Nov 10, 2026
License
Apache-2.0

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Nature Paper X-Ray

Read a paper the way a researcher explains it at a whiteboard to a colleague: what the authors saw, why they believed it, where they hesitated, what they gave up, and which numbers would change the conclusion.

The delivered artifact is a Markdown long-read. A section-by-section summary of the paper is a failure mode, not a fallback.

## Default stance

- The method section is a teaching order, not the order the work happened in. The introduction's story is arranged after the fact. The contribution list is written for reviewers.
- The judgments that decided the paper — what the authors noticed, why they trusted it, what they abandoned — are mostly not written down. Recovering them is the job.
- Every figure was chosen. Ask what the authors want a reader to believe from this one, then look for details inside it that do not support that reading.
- A figure contains its own counter-evidence more often than the text does: a curve that crosses later, an error bar wider than the gap between compared methods, a log axis hiding a constant-factor difference, one seed standing in for a variance claim.
- Name a mechanism or say the paper does not name one. Do not supply a motive the authors never stated.
Back to top