| name | paper-digest |
| description | Produce a content/knowledge digest of ONE paper for fast absorption of its full content — not a quality critique. Use when the user wants to "整理內容", "快速吸收", "知識整理", "內容平讀", or when /paper-sync dispatches a 📚內容 pick. The digest reorganizes the paper's full text into a teaching-style structured note (structure routed by paper type) plus self-test review cards pushed to the 複習頁 (configured `review_site.url`). REQUIRES full text: no full text → STOP and report 缺全文, never produce an abstract-only digest. NOT a critical appraisal (that is /paper-review) and NOT a multi-paper synthesis.
|
Paper Digest — 單篇論文內容整理（快速吸收）
What this is (and is NOT)
/paper-review answers 「這篇可不可信、做得好不好」. /paper-digest answers
「這篇講了什麼、我怎麼最快把全部內容吸收進腦袋」. It is for papers read as content / knowledge
material（綜論、技術介紹、機制整理、指引）. The two are independent and can both run on one paper
(combined note). A digest additionally feeds the 複習迴圈: it generates self-test cards that go to
the review web page so learning doesn't end at "note written".
Tone, language, and clinical framing are driven by ${persona} (see Configuration). Follow vault
note rules (Tab indent, > [!type] callouts, ${persona.highlight_style} for cut-offs, no code
blocks for clinical content).
Configuration (read FIRST, every run)
Read config.yaml in the sibling paper-review/ skill directory (shared config; copy
config.example.yaml → config.yaml on first setup). Keys this skill uses:
${vault.papers_dir}, ${vault.medicine_dir}, ${vault.inbox_note}, ${vault.daily_section},
${review_site.url}, ${review_site.push_script}, ${persona}. Substitute every ${...} with the
config value; a blank value means "skip that route" (e.g. empty review_site.push_script → no card push).
Input
DOI / PMID / title / PDF path / pasted full text. Optional flags:
--into <note path> — instead of creating a standalone note, prepend the digest as a
## 內容整理（快速吸收） section into an existing note (used by /paper-sync when both 🔬+📚 picked,
so content sits above the appraisal in one file).--no-cards — skip review-card generation/push (default is to generate).
Phase 0 — Full text is MANDATORY (hard gate)
Acquire full text per the shared protocol ~/.claude/skills/paper-review/fulltext-acquisition.md
(user-provided → ${fulltext.inbox_dir} → Zotero → OA auto-fetch → Elsevier TDM → institutional SFX resolver).
If no route yields full text → STOP. Do NOT write an abstract-only digest. Report:
缺全文：{title} — 需要 PDF 才能做內容整理. When called from /paper-sync this routes to the 缺全文 handoff
(logged to ${vault.inbox_note} # 缺全文待補; user supplies PDF then says「繼續」). Abstract-only is
exactly the over-simplification this skill exists to avoid.
Phase 1 — Build the digest（三層漸進揭露）
Goal: a reader can absorb all the substantive content without opening the PDF. Reorganize, don't
transcribe. Every digest has THREE layers (user's Esor 三層筆記法):
- 30 秒層 —
> [!summary] 一句話 + 重點 callout (between frontmatter and first heading):
one-line takeaway + 3–5 bullets of the highest-value facts (mechanisms, numbers, conclusions).
End the callout with one quality pointer line:
品質未評讀（內容整理）；需可信度判斷 → /paper-review — or, if a 品質快照 already exists in the
combined note, 品質 → 見上方品質快照.
- 5 分鐘層 — each
## section OPENS with a one-line **要點**：… bold summary before its
bullets, so scanning only the 要點 lines reconstructs the paper.
- 完整層 — the full structured bullets/tables below each 要點.
Section structure — ROUTED BY PAPER TYPE (pick one, don't force-fit)
A. Empirical study（RCT / 觀察性 / diagnostic…） — default:
## 研究問題 / 背景 — gap, why it matters, key prior context.## 方法 — design, population, intervention, measures — concise, only what's needed to read the
findings (deep methods scrutiny belongs to /paper-review).## 主要發現 — the core. Tabulate numeric results (effect sizes, ==cut-offs==, CIs, p). One row
per finding. Pull the actual numbers out of the text.## 臨床意義 / 怎麼用 — so-what for a PMR clinician / teachable points.
B. Narrative review / 機制整理 — concept-map style:
## 全文地圖 — how the author carves the topic into sections; one line per block.## 各主題重點 — one ### per theme: core claims, key numbers, the studies it leans on.## 機轉白話講解 — for the hardest mechanism(s), a Feynman-style plain-Chinese walkthrough
(analogy allowed); anything beyond the paper's own content marked ⚠️ 補充. Written to be reusable
when teaching residents.## 臨床意義 / 怎麼用
C. Guideline / consensus:
## 建議條文表 — table: recommendation / 強度 / 證據等級 / 適用族群, one row per recommendation.## 與前版或他版差異 — what changed vs the previous edition or competing guideline (if stated).## 實務落地 — how it maps to the user's practice setting.
D. 技術 / 方法學論文:
## 這個技術是什麼 / 解決什麼問題## Step-by-step protocol — restated so it could be followed without the PDF.## 適用時機與限制 — when to reach for it, failure modes, alternatives.
Sections common to ALL types
## 重要圖表重述 — restate what each key figure/table shows in words. If a figure is essential,
flag it for /figure-remap rather than embedding blindly.## 與既有認知的對照 — run vault_search on the note's core concepts; where an existing
${vault.medicine_dir} / ${vault.papers_dir} note says something this paper updates, refines, or contradicts, list
舊認知（[[note]]）→ 本篇. This is the knowledge-delta layer — also the candidate list for a later
/note-supplement. Nothing to compare → one line「vault 無相關既有筆記」, don't pad.## 概念 / 名詞整理 — teaching layer: define and connect the concepts/terms a learner needs. Link
related vault notes [[NoteName]].## 自我測驗 — see Phase 2.## Reference — the paper itself (`Author 2026, Journal` + doi); pivotal citations it leans on.
Citation discipline: every claim in the digest comes from THIS paper's full text. Outside context added
to explain a concept → mark ⚠️ 補充.
Phase 2 — Self-test cards（主動回憶層）
The user's known failure mode is over-organizing and under-recalling — the digest must end with
retrieval practice, not just structure.
- Write
## 自我測驗 in the note: 3–5 questions as folded callouts —
> [!question]- Q1：{題目——偏臨床決策/機轉理解，不是背數字}
> {答案，2-4 行，含關鍵數值與理由}
Question quality bar: answerable from this paper alone; tests understanding ("為什麼選 X 而不是 Y",
"什麼情況下這結論不適用") over recall of trivia; one question may target the paper's single most
exam/practice-relevant number.
- Push to the 學習中樞 (unless
--no-cards OR ${review_site.push_script} is blank): write the
cards to a JSON file in the scratchpad —
[{"citekey","note","title","question","answer","tags":["topic",...],"deck":"論文","source":"paper"}, ...]
(note = vault filename without .md; title = 中文短標; deck 固定 "論文"、source 固定 "paper") — then:
python ${review_site.push_script} <cards.json>
The push script is idempotent (card_id = citekey + question hash, INSERT OR IGNORE) and prints the
pushed count. Report:「已推 N 張複習卡 → ${review_site.url}」.
Push failure (or blank push_script) → note still stands; report it and leave the JSON path for a
manual retry — never block the digest on the card push.
Output
- Standalone (default): write
${vault.papers_dir}{中文短標}.md. Frontmatter tags: [research/digest, …topic],
citekey, doi, aliases for the English title if useful. Return the note filename to the caller.
--into <path>: insert the ## 內容整理（快速吸收） section (the body above, minus its own
frontmatter) directly after the target note's > [!summary] callout / before its first appraisal
heading, so content reads first and the /paper-review appraisal follows. Cards still get pushed.- One line to today's daily note
${vault.daily_section} is handled by /paper-sync (don't double-write when called
from it). Standalone manual runs: add the daily-note line yourself.
Notes
- This is a new-note creation task → normally show a draft for review. Exception when invoked by
/paper-sync: write directly (the user already opted in by pressing 📚 and confirming the batch).
- Heavy (full-text + synthesis). Run on a capable model; for a /paper-sync batch, one subagent per paper.
- Don't duplicate
/paper-review's appraisal. If the user really wants both, that's the combined note —
keep the digest descriptive and leave judgement to the appraisal section.
Self-Check (before finalizing)
