Academic Research Skills for Claude Code

简体中文版 | 繁體中文版 | 日本語版 | 한국어 | Español

A comprehensive suite of Claude Code skills for academic research, covering the full pipeline from research to publication.

Install in 30 seconds (Claude Code CLI / VS Code / JetBrains, v3.7.0+):

/plugin marketplace add Imbad0202/academic-research-skills
/plugin install academic-research-skills

Then try /ars-plan to walk through your paper structure via Socratic dialogue, or jump to Quick install for prerequisites and the traditional symlink flow.

AI is your copilot, not the pilot. It can draft text, including a whole paper in full mode, but the decisions stay yours, and the pipeline stops for your confirmation at every stage. It handles the grunt work (hunting down references, formatting citations, verifying data, checking logical consistency) so you can focus on the parts that actually require your brain: defining the question, choosing the method, interpreting what the data means, and deciding what comes after "I argue that." You remain the author, and you answer for every claim you submit.

Unlike a humanizer, this tool doesn't help you hide the fact that you used AI. It helps you write better. Style Calibration learns your voice from past work. Writing Quality Check catches the patterns that make prose feel machine-generated. The goal is quality, not cheating.

Why human-in-the-loop, not full automation?

Lu et al. (2026, Nature 651:914-919) built The AI Scientist — the first fully autonomous AI research system to publish a paper through blind peer review at a top-tier ML venue (ICLR 2025 workshop, score 6.33/10 vs workshop average 4.87). Their Limitations section enumerates the failure modes that any fully-autonomous AI research pipeline inherits: implementation bugs, hallucinated results, shortcut reliance, bug-as-insight reframing, methodology fabrication, frame-lock, citation hallucinations.

ARS is built on the premise that a human researcher augmented by AI avoids these failure modes better than either alone. Stage 2.5 and Stage 4.5 integrity gates run a 7-mode blocking checklist (see academic-pipeline/references/ai_research_failure_modes.md); the reviewer offers an opt-in calibration mode that measures its own FNR/FPR against a user-supplied gold set.

Zhao et al. (2026-05) audited 111M references across 2.5M papers on arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PMC. Their conservative estimate is 146,932 hallucinated citations for 2025 alone, with an observed mid-2024 inflection; for the bioRxiv-to-PMC pairing they report 85.3% preprint-to-published persistence. The paper describes "real citations deployed to support claims the cited references do not actually make" as an open challenge. ARS v3.7.1 added trust-chain frontmatter for source provenance; v3.7.3 added locator infrastructure (three-layer citation anchors) for future claim-level audits and surfaces advisory risk signals at cite time (ARS labels the claim-faithfulness gap internally as "L3"; this is ARS terminology, not the paper's). v3.7.x is motivated by Zhao et al.'s corpus-scale findings; corpus-scale evaluation of ARS itself remains future work.

v3.8 closes the second half of the L3 gap. v3.7.3 made every citation carry a locator anchor; v3.8 adds an opt-in audit pass (ARS_CLAIM_AUDIT=1) that fetches the cited source against each anchor and judges whether the claim is actually supported. Five new HIGH-WARN classes (claim-not-supported, negative-constraint-violation, fabricated-reference, anchorless, constraint-violation-uncited) gate-refuse output through the formatter terminal hard gate. A calibration runner ships with a 25-tuple synthetic gold set and FNR<0.15 + FPR<0.10 acceptance thresholds. Its shipped test drives the runner with a stub judge that returns the gold labels, so it checks the tooling, not a live judge; no live-judge calibration result is recorded yet, and the ramp-on plan waits for one (v3.8 spec §5).

Ren et al. (2026, Self-Improvements in Modern Agentic Systems: A Survey) supplies a third, survey-level anchor. Its scientific-discovery synthesis (§7.4) concludes that discovery agents cannot easily verify novelty, correctness, or reproducibility on their own and may exploit weak proxies instead, must manage evidence across heterogeneous tools and literature, and raise governance issues — "scientific writing can also amplify misinformation when the evidence is weak." Its generation-loop chapters (§5.1–§5.2) list human auditing and retained human anchors among the practical safeguards for self-generated evaluation loops, and its historical chapter (§2.2) records the oldest form of the same lesson: the practical success of Lenat's EURISKO depended heavily on the user serving as the external evaluation signal, pruning unproductive heuristic drift — a limitation the survey notes persists in modern agentic systems. ARS cites the survey as design rationale for its human-in-the-loop stance, not as empirical proof that human-in-the-loop pipelines outperform autonomous ones; the survey's actionable deltas for ARS are tracked in #539–#541 and #547–#550.

Gartenberg et al. (2026, Organization Science 37(3):795-812, "More versus better") supplies a fourth anchor, and the first from the journal side. The Organization Science AI Task Force scored every first submission (6,957) and every text-format review (10,389) the journal received between January 2021 and February 2026 with a commercial AI-writing classifier and standard readability indices. Manuscripts scored as heavily AI-written read worse on those indices and were desk-rejected more often; reviews scored as more AI-written leaned toward theory and away from data; and the editors conclude that current AI tools, amplified by publish-or-perish incentives, "appear to be pushing the system toward an equilibrium of more rather than better research." Their §5 contrasts "cognitive surrender" (Shaw & Nave, 2026, as cited there) with human-first use and asks authors to disclose how a manuscript was produced. The evidence is observational, aggregate, and from one journal, and the classifier is a proprietary instrument. ARS cites the editorial as design rationale for recording volume as a non-goal (see POSITIONING.md) and for the Collaboration Depth Observer and the claim-strength ladder, not as evidence about ARS output; the actionable deltas are tracked in #829–#833.

Wang, Li et al. (2026-09, The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing, a survey of 230 sources) supplies a fifth anchor, and the first that treats research production and peer review as one coupled system. Its evaluative-authority ladder (§4.1) runs from author-facing feedback through reviewer assistance and official AI reviews to scoring and decision support, with the survey's point that capability at one rung does not justify use at the next; ARS's simulated panel sits on the lowest rung by design (see POSITIONING.md). Two of its findings shape the reviewer roadmap. First, as the survey summarizes Dycke & Gurevych (2026, §4.5), 391 edits that break a paper's scientific support relations produced no statistically significant difference in the tested automated reviewers' aspects, sentiment, or scores compared with 540 soundness-neutral controls, while presentation-only rewrites with the science held fixed moved AI-review scores (§5.2); the survey's §9.2 conclusion is that a static evaluation can overstate an AI reviewer's reliability once authors can observe and adapt to it. ARS tracks the corresponding Round-1 paired controls in #871 and the author-identity-cue controls (§7.2) in #872; both are measurements, not new mechanisms. Second, its §9.1 cites Brodeur et al. (2026, PNAS 123(22):e2524747123), a randomized study in which 288 researchers in 103 teams reproduced published quantitative social-science results under three conditions: human-only, AI-assisted (ChatGPT as a collaborative tool), and AI-led (ChatGPT with minimal human oversight). Human-only and AI-assisted teams reproduced 94% and 91%, AI-led teams 37%, and the AI-assisted teams detected fewer major coding errors than the human-only teams. In that study, then, AI assistance did not verify better than humans alone and AI-led verification did much worse; ARS reads this as a reason to keep verification human-led at every checkpoint, not as evidence that its own checkpoints or integrity gates are effective. The survey is a synthesis rather than an experiment, its structured search stops at 2026-07-01 and the later targeted update did not rerun every query (§10), its deployment evidence is concentrated in a small number of AI/CS conferences, OpenReview-based settings, and selected journals, and its "arms race" framing is a lens, not a finding; ARS cites it as design rationale, not as evidence about ARS output.

King & Worthington (2026-10, AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices) supplies a sixth anchor, and the first that compares A