{
  "schema_version": 2,
  "kind": "shortening-method",
  "format": "agent-skill",
  "id": "paper-brief",
  "name": "Paper brief",
  "category": "Technical",
  "summary": "Keep a paper's method, evidence, novelty, and limitations.",
  "use_cases": [
    "Research papers",
    "Literature triage",
    "Technical reading notes"
  ],
  "word_count": 110,
  "url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/",
  "instructions_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/SKILL.md",
  "skill_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/SKILL.md",
  "json_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/llms.txt",
  "plain_text_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/prompt.txt",
  "license": "MIT",
  "sources_url": "https://sho.rten.it/sources/#paper-brief",
  "skill_name": "paper-brief",
  "skill_description": "Keep a paper's method, evidence, novelty, and limitations. Use for Research papers, Literature triage, Technical reading notes.",
  "agents_md_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/paper-brief/AGENTS.md",
  "sources": [
    {
      "title": "Fabric · summarize_paper",
      "url": "https://github.com/danielmiessler/Fabric/blob/b682dad740f24e85ce9a48d23babc6780dd476ac/data/patterns/summarize_paper/system.md",
      "repository": "https://github.com/danielmiessler/Fabric",
      "revision": "b682dad740f24e85ce9a48d23babc6780dd476ac",
      "path": "data/patterns/summarize_paper/system.md",
      "license": "MIT",
      "license_url": "https://github.com/danielmiessler/Fabric/blob/b682dad740f24e85ce9a48d23babc6780dd476ac/LICENSE",
      "license_file": "licenses/danielmiessler--fabric.txt",
      "copyright": "Copyright (c) 2012-2024 Scott Chacon and others",
      "repository_stars": 43885,
      "checked_at": "2026-09-11T05:14:00Z",
      "license_scope": "Root MIT license covers this pinned prompt. No nested license or NOTICE applies.",
      "adaptation": "Retains seven review headings and the technical approach/evidence/limitations structure. Removes the source's contradictory instruction to output a prompt. Adds explicit incomplete-paper and evidence safeguards."
    }
  ],
  "instructions": "Summarize the supplied academic paper in clear Markdown. Use these headings: Title and authors; Main goal and fundamental concept; Technical approach; Distinctive features; Experimental setup and results; Advantages and limitations; Conclusion.\n\nExplain the research question, core idea, method, claimed novelty, experimental design, main findings, strengths, and limits. Prefer one concise paragraph per section. Define technical terms when needed, but retain the names of methods and models.\n\nPreserve reported quantities, comparisons, uncertainty, and conditions. Separate the authors' claims from demonstrated results. Do not infer missing experiments, authors, or conclusions from an abstract. Mark unavailable information as not supplied. End with the main finding and the limitation that most affects its interpretation.",
  "example": {
    "context": "Brief of an illustrative caching paper",
    "before": "The paper \"CacheLite\" is by N. Chen. It asks whether reusing cached answers can reduce latency in a question-answering system. The method uses exact matching against a cache and is compared with a system that has no cache. The evaluation used 1,000 repeated questions; on that dataset, median latency fell by 30%. The authors describe the implementation as simple, but do not compare implementation complexity with other methods. They did not test new questions. The paper concludes that caching helped on this repeated-query test, while benefits on less repetitive workloads require further evaluation.",
    "after": "Title and authors\nCacheLite, N. Chen.\n\nMain goal and fundamental concept\nReduce answer latency through reuse.\n\nTechnical approach\nCompare exact-match caching with no cache.\n\nDistinctive features\nAuthors claim simplicity; comparative complexity evidence is not supplied.\n\nExperimental setup and results\nMedian latency fell 30% on 1,000 repeated questions.\n\nAdvantages and limitations\nFaster on the tested workload; new questions were not tested.\n\nConclusion\nCaching helped on repeated queries. Benefits on less repetitive workloads remain uncertain.",
    "must_preserve": [
      "CacheLite by N. Chen",
      "Exact-match caching versus no cache",
      "1,000 repeated questions; 30% reduction in median latency",
      "Simplicity is an author claim without comparative complexity evidence",
      "New questions untested; less-repetitive workload benefit uncertain"
    ],
    "omitted": [
      "Removes repeated descriptions of the research question while preserving all required sections and distinguishing claimed simplicity from evidence."
    ],
    "kind": "illustrative"
  }
}