| name | research-arxiv-scout |
| description | Discovers and triages recent arXiv papers for AI/ML, agents, and software/QA. Use when scouting categories, arXiv IDs, or source lists. |
| compatibility | Portable core. arXiv API attribution required in any output that uses arXiv data. |
| version | 1.1 |
| last_validated | 2026-07-11T00:00:00.000Z |
research-arxiv-scout
Use arXiv as a discovery layer for recent research, then produce repo-friendly outputs (ranked recommendations and 02_sources-*.json-style entries) without fabricating metrics.
Required attribution (arXiv API terms of use)
Include the following line in any output that uses arXiv data:
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability.
Source: this exact sentence is arXiv's requested attribution statement, published on the arXiv API Documentation page (info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html, linked from data/sources.json) — not on the Terms of Use page (tou.html), which covers rate limits and permitted use but does not itself contain an attribution clause. Checked 2026-07-11.
Quick Reference
| Task | Inputs | Deliverable | Use these files |
|---|
| Scout for a known skill | Skill name | Ranked list + actions | config.yaml, assets/recommendation-output-template.md |
| Scout for a topic | Topic + categories | Ranked list + actions | references/category-taxonomy.md |
| Summarize one paper | arXiv ID | Single-paper summary | references/arxiv-api-guide.md |
| Propose sources updates | Target path | 02_sources-*.json entries | assets/sources-json-template.md |
| Mine HCI/CSCW retention papers (killer-feature bundle handoff) | Commercial product / candidate feature_id | Rows on shared bundle ledger | references/product-retention-categories.md, config.yaml key killer-feature-retention |
Workflow
ASCII Flow
arXiv scout request
-> Map target to arXiv categories and keywords
-> Query arXiv metadata with date-aware parameters
-> Triage candidates for relevance, practicality, and evidence
-> Verify abstract URLs, IDs, titles, authors, and any code links
-> Produce ranked recommendations or sources-json entries
-> Include required arXiv attribution and final checklist
1) Map target to categories and keywords
- If the target matches a key in
config.yaml, use its categories, keywords, and time window.
- Otherwise, pick 1-4 arXiv categories and 3-8 keywords using
references/category-taxonomy.md.
2) Query arXiv (metadata only)
- Use
references/arxiv-api-guide.md to build queries for export.arxiv.org/api/query.
- Prefer
sortBy=submittedDate and sortOrder=descending when scouting recent work.
- Start with
max_results=50; paginate if needed.
Generate queries from config.yaml rather than hand-building them:
python3 scripts/generate_arxiv_scout_queries.py --list-skills
python3 scripts/generate_arxiv_scout_queries.py --skill ai-agents
python3 scripts/generate_arxiv_scout_queries.py --topic "agent memory" \
--categories cs.AI cs.CL --windows 30d 90d
The output includes estimated_min_runtime_seconds — at the enforced 1 req/3s
this is the floor for executing the emitted queries serially. Do not parallelise
to beat it; that is the fastest route to a 429.
Minimal query skeleton (if building by hand):
search_query=cat:cs.AI AND (agents OR "tool use")
sortBy=submittedDate&sortOrder=descending&start=0&max_results=50
2b) Pre-triage: social-signal cross-reference
Before scoring API results, cross-reference candidate arXiv IDs against:
- HF Papers (
huggingface.co/papers) — daily community highlights and upvotes.
- alphaXiv (
alphaxiv.org) — social layer on arXiv with comments and trending signals.
Flag any paper that appears on either platform — community attention is a fast quality gate that reduces triage effort. Also check each candidate's abstract for a GitHub or project-page link; verified code links upgrade the Practicality score (low implementation lift).
3) Triage and score
For each candidate paper, extract:
- Title, authors, arXiv ID, submitted date, categories
- Abstract-based relevance to the target
- Implementation signals (only if verified): code repository, dataset, benchmark, reproducibility notes
Do not include citation counts, GitHub stars, conference acceptance, or affiliations unless you can verify them.
Signal-vs-noise judgment calls (apply before scoring):
- Versioned re-announcements. A paper with
v2/v3 in its history and an updated date inside your window but a published (first-submission) date months or years older is a revision, not new work — see references/arxiv-api-guide.md#version-deduplication. Sorting by lastUpdatedDate will surface these; always cross-check published before treating a hit as fresh.
- Citation-count traps on fresh papers. Even where citation counts are verifiable (Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex), a paper submitted in the last 1-3 months will have a near-zero count almost regardless of quality — citation lag, not merit, dominates at that age. Do not use "0 citations" as a negative signal on anything younger than ~6 months, and do not present a low count as meaningful evidence either way; state the paper's age instead.
- Preprint vs. peer-reviewed. arXiv is a preprint server: most results are not yet peer-reviewed, and some are rejected-and-resubmitted or duplicate-with-different-framing work. Absent a verified acceptance note (author's own "accepted at ..." line, checked against the actual venue), treat every candidate as unreviewed and say so in the report — do not imply venue prestige you have not confirmed.
- Hype-paper tells. Down-weight (do not auto-reject, but flag) candidates that combine: (a) marketing-register title/abstract language ("revolutionary", "unprecedented", state-of-the-art claims with no named baseline), (b) benchmarks limited to the authors' own curated dataset with no third-party eval, and (c) heavy same-day cross-posting to HF Papers / alphaXiv / X with upvote counts but no substantive technical discussion in the comments. Community attention (step 2b) is a volume signal, not a quality signal — read the abstract and, where available, the actual discussion thread before letting upvotes raise a score.
- Author/lab self-citation and PR-driven timing. A paper timed to a product launch or funding announcement from the same lab is not disqualifying, but note the coincidence in "Limits/risks" rather than silently treating it as independent validation.
Suggested scoring (0-10):
| Dimension | 0-3 | 4-7 | 8-10 |
|---|
| Relevance | Weak match | Partial match | Direct match |
| Practicality | High lift | Moderate lift | Low lift |
| Evidence | Unclear | Some evaluation | Clear evaluation |
4) Produce deliverables
- Recommendation report: use
assets/recommendation-output-template.md
02_sources-*.json entries: use assets/sources-json-template.md
5) Final checks (before handoff)
Killer-Feature Mode (HCI Retention Papers)
Specialized mode that contributes the hci_retention_paper signal to the bundle's Killer-Feature Convergence Protocol owned by research-review-mining.
Premise. HCI/CSCW/UIST work periodically publishes long-term studies that empirically tie a specific feature or interaction pattern to retention, freemium conversion, or willingness-to-pay. arXiv's cs.HC (plus cs.CY, cs.SI, cs.IR) indexes most of this work — though only ~50-70% of CHI/CSCW is on arXiv, so the ACM-only fraction stays with research-scout's conference query generator.
When to use: bundle handoff from research-review-mining Killer-Feature Mode KF3 asks for the HCI signal; OR you have a candidate feature_id and want a rigorous attribution study.
Workflow delta:
KF-ARX-1. Map target to the config.yaml key `killer-feature-retention`
(categories: cs.HC, cs.CY, cs.SI, cs.IR;
keywords: long-term retention, feature adoption, freemium conversion, ...)
KF-ARX-2. Query arXiv per templates in references/product-retention-categories.md
KF-ARX-3. Triage with the standard 0-10 dimensions PLUS the
"Attribution rigor" dimension defined in that reference
KF-ARX-4. Only papers with rigor>=7 graduate to a row on
../research-review-mining/assets/pay-trigger-ledger.tsv
(signal_type=hci_retention_paper; wtp_strength=strong if causal,
implicit if correlational only)
KF-ARX-5. Run ../research-review-mining/scripts/converge_killer_features.py
Expect 0-2 strong rows per scan — sparse but high credibility per hit. Zero rows is normal and does not downgrade other signals in the Convergence Rule.
References:
Navigation
Resources:
Related skills:
../research-scout/SKILL.md — multi-source research idea mining (arXiv + HF Papers + Semantic Scholar + Papers with Code + conferences + industry blogs + curator newsletters). Use it when you want cross-source corroboration; use this skill when arXiv depth and category taxonomy are the priority.../research-git/SKILL.md — git-history research for repo-internal evidence.
Fact-Checking
- Verify all arXiv IDs and abstract URLs (
https://arxiv.org/abs/<id>) before output. Hallucinated IDs are the most common failure mode.
- Do not fabricate citation counts, GitHub stars, conference acceptance, or affiliations. Omit if not directly verified on the source page.
- Code links must be checked against the abstract page or repository, not assumed from the title.
- arXiv's API Documentation page asks every API consumer to include the attribution line "Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability." in any output that uses arXiv data (see "Required attribution" above for the precise source).
- For runtime-specific or volatile claims (dataset size, benchmark numbers, version-specific footguns), label them with the date pulled and prefer primary sources.
- If web access is unavailable, mark all paper-specific claims as unverified.
Learnings Loop
Before applying this skill on a non-trivial task, read learnings.consolidated.md in this directory (and learnings.md if present).
After applying it, if you encountered a pattern worth remembering, a mistake worth preventing, or a domain fact that surprised you, append one dated bullet to learnings.md via agents-skills-feedback-loop/scripts/append_learning.py. Do not modify SKILL.md itself.
