ljg-paper: Read Papers

Reading papers isn't about doing academia—it's about hunting for ideas. Break down others' findings into actionable knowledge you can use.

Format Constraints

Org-mode Syntax

Use
```
*bold*
```
(single asterisk) for bold text;
```
**bold**
```
is prohibited
Heading levels start with
```
*
```
and must not skip levels

ASCII Art

All diagrams must use pure ASCII characters. Allowed characters:

+ - | / \ > < v ^ * = ~ . : # [ ] ( ) _ , ; ! ' "

and spaces. Unicode drawing symbols are prohibited.

Template Authority

Output structure must follow

references/template.org

. Do not reference the chapter structure of existing paper files in

~/Documents/notes/

—old files may use outdated templates.

Denote File Specifications

Timestamp:
```
date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S
```
Human-readable time:
```
date "+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M"
```

File name:

{timestamp}--paper-{short-title}__paper.org

Output directory:
```
~/Documents/notes/
```

Org File Header

#+title:      paper-{short-title}
#+date:       [{YYYY-MM-DD Day HH:MM}]
#+filetags:   :paper:
#+identifier: {YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS}
#+source:     {URL or source description}
#+authors:    {author list}
#+venue:      {publication venue/year}

Report the file path after writing.

Red Lines (Must Comply with Each)

Colloquial Test — Would you introduce a paper to a friend like this? If not, revise. Academic jargon is the default enemy
Zero Jargon First — Start with plain language, then mention technical terms only if necessary. If you must use the original term to explain, it means you haven't fully understood it
Prefer Short Phrases — Use two characters instead of four if possible. "This paper proposes a new framework" → "They built something"
One Idea per Sentence — Each sentence only advances one point
Be Specific — Nouns should be tangible, verbs should be powerful. Cut adjectives whenever possible
Lead with the "Why" — The first sentence of the problem section should make readers want to know the answer
No Filler — Remove academic clichés (e.g., "In recent years, with the development of...", "It is worth noting that..."). Every sentence must serve a purpose
Trust Your Readers — Say it once, that's enough. Don't repeat conclusions
Be Honest — If the paper has flaws, state them clearly. If you don't understand a part, say so

Writing Principles

Four core principles that determine whether the content sounds like "a real person talking" or "a machine reporting":

Anchor the Whole Text with One Metaphor — Find a concrete central metaphor (a diagram, a scenario, an action) and let all concepts revolve around it. Don't list five concepts side by side—string them together with one thread. The anchor should appear at the start of the "Translation" section, and you can circle back to it in subsequent chapters
Explicit Reasoning — Simulate "the process of someone figuring things out" instead of presenting "the result after figuring it out". Use phrases like "Since A is B, can C also be D?" to guide readers through the reasoning. Make readers feel they almost arrived at the conclusion themselves
Replace Definitions with Transformations — When explaining the relationship between two concepts, continuously transform A into B instead of saying "A and B have XX relationship". "Transform LSTM → it looks like ResNet" is ten times more impactful than "LSTM and ResNet are dual"
End with Actionable Takeaways — Provide "This means you can ___" instead of "This makes us rethink ___". Readers should take away something they can act on, not a thought-provoking sentiment

Toolkit (Optional)

Tools you can use when explaining papers—none are mandatory:

Analogy — A robust analogy where key components of the method can be mapped. Walk through the method along the analogy
ASCII Diagram — Show component relationships, data flows, or structural comparisons. Draw it only after readers have a conceptual scaffold
Napkin Sketch — Side-by-side comparison of "how we used to think" vs. "how we should think now"
Good Questions — Frame the dilemma solved by the paper into a question that even laypeople would find curious
Progressive Examples — Build understanding step by step from simple to complex
Rhetorical Questions to Link Ideas — When encountering implicit assumptions, use questions to open up the discussion

Execution

1. Acquire Content

arXiv URL → WebFetch
PDF → Read (note page parameter limits)
Local file → Read
Paper title → WebSearch

Ensure you obtain: title, authors, abstract, core method, results.

2. Positioning: What Problem Is It Solving?

Find the real dilemma—something that can't be done, a phenomenon that can't be explained, a path that leads nowhere. Explain the context in one paragraph.

Instead of "This paper proposes a new XXX framework", say "Large models are so smart, why do they start spouting nonsense when asked about specific facts?"

3. Feynman Technique: Make It Understandable to Laypeople

Explain the paper's core ideas in a way that a smart person outside the field can follow. Feel free to use analogies, diagrams, examples, or progressive explanations—choose what works best for the paper.

Set the anchor first: Find a concrete central metaphor or image and present it in the first paragraph of the "Translation" section. All subsequent concepts should revolve around this anchor, not be listed separately.

Guide readers through reasoning: Don't give conclusions directly. Simulate "the process of figuring things out step by step"—use phrases like "Since X is like this, can Y also be like this?" Make readers feel they almost arrived at the conclusion themselves.

You need to cover:

How it works (core mechanism/method)
What results it achieved (pick 2-3 most illustrative results)
Key concepts needed to understand the full text (if any)

Subheadings in the Feynman translation section can be organized as needed—no fixed structure required.

4. Core Concepts: Turn Jargon into Intuition

Select 1 to 3 most critical concepts from the paper (method names, architecture components, mathematical objects, new definitions, etc.) and break them down one by one.

For each concept:

One sentence: What it is and what it's used for
Analogy or example: Make it instantly understandable to someone who's never encountered it. When explaining relationships between two concepts, prioritize "transform A into B" over "A and B have XX relationship"—transformation is more impactful than definition
Why it matters: Where the paper's logical chain would break without it

Selection criteria: If readers don't understand this concept, they won't follow the insights and review later. Don't repeat concepts that were already fully explained in the "Translation" section.

5. Insights: The Core Idea

Often, the most valuable part of a paper is just one point—the new "gem" the author actually discovered.

State it in one sentence. This sentence should make readers think "I can take this idea with me" instead of "Oh, the paper says this".

Test: If you extract this sentence out of the paper's context, does it still hold power? If it's just restating the paper's conclusion, it's not an insight. An insight is what you see after reading the paper—something the paper may not state explicitly, but the logic points to it.

If you can't articulate it, re-read step 3. If the paper truly has no intellectual spark, say "This paper is an engineering improvement with no new cognitive discoveries". Don't force it.

6. Supervisor's Review

Switch roles: You're a supervisor who's guided graduate students in this field for 20 years. A student brings you this paper—judge whether it's worth taking seriously.

Speak plainly, like chatting with a student in your office:

Topic Selection: Is the problem worth solving? Is it a real gap or an artificial one?
Method Maturity: Does it use clever thinking or brute force? Are there more natural approaches that were overlooked?
Experimental Integrity: Are the baselines fair? Are ablation studies thorough? Can the numbers withstand scrutiny?
Writing Quality: Did the authors skip explaining the most critical parts?
Verdict: strong accept / weak accept / borderline / weak reject / strong reject, with one-sentence reasoning

Praise the good parts, and clearly point out the flaws in the bad parts.

7. Inspiration: Reminders for Me

Focus on "actionable" rather than "contemplative". Provide "This means you can ___" instead of "This makes us rethink ___".

Explore connections from three perspectives—expand on the ones that resonate, skip the ones that don't, and say "None" if none do:

Migration: Can a mechanism/perspective from the paper be transplanted to upgrade a part of your own system? How exactly?
Mix-and-Match: Can a component from the paper combine with something you already have to create something new? What would the output be?
Reverse Thinking: Does the paper's approach contradict your default assumptions? What should you stop doing, and what should you start doing?

8. Check the Red Lines

Go through each red line one by one. Additional checks:

Avoid Formulaic Phrases: No more than two negative parallel structures; change three-part structures to two or four parts
Vary Sentence Rhythm: Alternate between long and short sentences
Overwrite "Quotable" Phrases: If a sentence sounds like a generic quote, rewrite it
Check for Logical Leaps: Every step of the reasoning must be traceable

Generate the file only after confirming all revisions.

9. Generate Org File

Obtain the timestamp according to Denote specifications, read

references/template.org

, and write the file to

~/Documents/notes/

Acceptance Criteria

Engaging Problem: Makes even laypeople want to know the answer
Has an Anchor: The "Translation" section has a concrete central metaphor, with all subsequent concepts revolving around it
Guided Reasoning: Readers can feel "the process of figuring things out step by step" instead of receiving a packaged conclusion
Layperson-Friendly: A smart person outside the field can retell the core idea after reading
Supervisor-like Judgment: Has clear judgment and appropriate tone, with a final verdict
Actionable Inspiration: The inspiration section ends with "You can ___" instead of "It's worth thinking about ___"
Seamless Flow: After reading, it feels like a person saying "I read a paper and found something interesting"

ljg-paper

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content (Chinese)