obsidian-llm-wiki: Command for Claude Code

.claude/commands/paper-report.md

paper-report is a command for Claude Code from mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki. It costs 16 tokens per session (569 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that drafts a seminar report from a paper note and its PDF. A seminar report is a structured academic write-up based on research literature.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to verify claims against the PDF, write a critical-analysis section, and record concerns from the paper review.
Why use it?
It checks whether the note has been reviewed and flags possible errors or disagreements before they are carried into the report.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

This is mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on obsidian-llm-wiki itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything obsidian-llm-wiki configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/main/.claude/commands/paper-report.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for paper-report

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for paper-report

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki/paper-report.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 16 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 569 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00016 $0.00569
Opus 5 $0.00008 $0.00284
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00114
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00057

Measured 12d ago against content hash 7dad915a2b2f, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

paper-report scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.claude/commands/paper-report.md · 53 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Review-gate check (soft)

Before running, check review_status:

  • unreviewed: warn — "This note has not been audited. A seminar report built on top of it may inherit errors. Running /review-note first is strongly recommended. (The seminar-report flow overlaps heavily with the audit flow anyway, so this is a good time to do both.)"
    • If the user continues, prepend: > [UNREVIEWED] This report is based on an unreviewed note. Treat the PDF as the final authority.
  • disputed: continue, but the critical-analysis section must surface the specific concerns (e.g. perfect arithmetic progressions, in-text/table contradictions)
  • reviewed_with_notes: quote the existing review_notes concerns in the critical-analysis section
  • reviewed: run normally

Tip: The seminar-report flow (especially step 2 "claim-by-claim PDF check") overlaps heavily with /review-note. Treat seminar preparation as a deep-audit opportunity — once done, the user can upgrade review_status to reviewed_with_notes / disputed (if issues were found) and sync findings to the note's ## Review log and to wiki/review-history.md.

Main flow

Read the PDF I specify plus the paper note I have open, then write a seminar-report draft.

Step 1: Load sources

  • Read the full PDF content
  • Read the comments and reactions in the note
  • Use the PDF as the primary information source; use the note as commentary

Step 2: Write the report

Structure:

  1. Background and motivation
  2. Related work (brief summary of 2–3 related studies)
  3. System model and problem definition
  4. Proposed method (core architecture and algorithm)
  5. Experimental results and analysis
  6. Critical analysis (strengths, weaknesses, logical-consistency check)
  7. Relation to my research
  8. Conclusion

Step 3: Build links

  • Use [[wikilinks]] in the new note to connect related notes
  • Add reverse links in those related notes

Requirements

  • Use the output language specified in SKILL.md (keep technical terms in their original form).
  • The critical-analysis section must have depth — concretely state whether motivation and methodology align.
  • Preserve and integrate the user's personal critique from the source note.
  • Where possible, suggest how the method could extend to the user's own domain.
  • File name for the new note: seminar-report-{paper-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md at vault root.

Read the full file on GitHub · 53 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 12d ago First seen · 53 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 7dad915a2b2f

Subscribe to this mod's changes

paper-report is a command published in the GitHub repository mickeytony0215-png/obsidian-llm-wiki (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 569 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.