Complete AI-assisted resume/CV generation framework: - 6 Claude Code skills (setup-extract, setup-build-kb, make-resume, make-cl, edit-resume, critique) - LaTeX templates (resume, CV, cover letter) with .cls class files - 6 reference docs (shared_ops, resume_reference, cl_reference, critical_rules, session_file_template, critique_framework) - Fictional Dr. Jordan Chen examples (extraction, experience, bundle, config, session, JD) - Knowledge base scaffolding and config template - README with setup guide and workflow documentation
6.7 KiB
description, user-invocable
| description | user-invocable |
|---|---|
| Extract structured information from research papers, PDFs, or code into knowledge base extractions | true |
/setup-extract
User input: $ARGUMENTS
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
- File path to a paper (e.g.,
papers/Smith2024_catalyst.pdf,papers/project_report.tex) → read that file - Multiple paths separated by spaces → batch mode (process each sequentially)
- Empty → ask the user for the paper path or paste content
Startup
- Read
CLAUDE.md— check KB Corrections Log for known issues - Read
config.md— load Personal Info (to identify user's author position), Provenance Flags - Read
knowledge_base/extractions/_INVENTORY.md— see what's already extracted, avoid duplicates
If the paper is already in the inventory:
- Show the existing extraction path
- Ask: "This paper is already extracted. Re-extract (overwrite) or skip?"
- Wait for user response before proceeding
Phase 1: Read & Understand the Paper
Read the paper using the appropriate method:
- PDF files: Use the Read tool (supports PDF reading)
- .tex source: Read directly — often has more detail than the compiled PDF
- If both exist: Prefer .tex for content extraction, use PDF for figures/tables
While reading, collect:
- Full title, all authors, year, journal/venue, DOI (if available)
- The user's position in the author list (first, co-first, second, middle, last, corresponding)
- Publication status (check
config.mdProvenance Flags first, then infer: published / under review / draft / internal) - All computational methods, experimental techniques, software, and frameworks mentioned
- Quantitative results — speedups, accuracies, efficiencies, improvements over baselines
- Novelty claims — "first-ever", "new framework", "novel approach", etc.
- Collaboration indicators — other groups, institutions, shared resources
- Funding acknowledgments
Progress: "Reading paper... [title] by [first author] et al., [year]"
Phase 2: Clarify User's Role
If the user's contribution is not obvious from the paper (common for multi-author work), ask:
Questions to ask (skip any that are already clear from the paper):
- "What was your specific contribution? (e.g., all computational work, specific analysis, code development)"
- "Did you develop any tools, methods, or code used in this paper?"
- "Were there other groups or institutions involved? What was your group's role?"
- "Any quantitative results you can personally claim? (e.g., 'I ran all the simulations')"
- "Is there anything in this paper that should NOT appear on your resume? (e.g., collaborator's experimental data)"
>>>>>> MANDATORY STOP — DO NOT PROCEED <<<<<<
Present your understanding of the paper and ask the clarifying questions above. You MUST wait for the user's explicit text response before continuing.
Phase 3: Write Extraction
Create the extraction file at knowledge_base/extractions/<AuthorYear_short_descriptor>.md
Naming convention: <FirstAuthorLastName><Year><2-3_word_descriptor>.md
- Examples:
Smith2024_protein_stability.md,Chen2023_binding_affinity.md - If the user is first author: use their last name
- Normalize to lowercase with underscores
Extraction format:
# [Full Paper Title]
## Metadata
- **Authors:** [author list — highlight user's name with bold]
- **Year:** [year]
- **Journal:** [journal/venue or "unpublished"/"internal"/"under review at X"]
- **DOI:** [DOI or "N/A"]
- **User's role:** [first author / co-first / contributing / corresponding]
- **Status:** [published | under review | draft | internal]
## Methods & Tools
- **Computational methods:** [e.g., MD, ML, FEA, CFD, etc. — be specific about methods, force fields, etc.]
- **Software/frameworks:** [e.g., GROMACS, PyTorch, ABAQUS, custom code, etc.]
- **Hardware/HPC:** [if mentioned — clusters, GPU resources, etc.]
- **Key techniques:** [specific methodological details that map to resume skills]
## Key Results
[Number each result. Include quantitative metrics wherever possible.]
1. [Result with numbers — e.g., "Achieved 5,000x speedup over brute-force screening"]
2. [Result — e.g., "Screened 8,500 variants, identified 7 top candidates"]
3. [...]
## Novelty Claims
[What's genuinely new — be precise, avoid overclaiming]
- [e.g., "First application of framework X to system Y"]
- [e.g., "New method combining A and B — no prior work exists"]
## Collaboration & Scope
- **Other groups:** [institutions, PIs involved]
- **User's specific contribution:** [from Phase 2 clarification]
- **Shared vs. sole work:** [what the user did alone vs. with others]
## Provenance Notes
- **Publication status:** [matches config.md if listed there]
- **Safe to claim:** [what the user can put on a resume without hedging]
- **Needs hedging:** [claims that require "contributed to" or "supported" framing]
- **Do NOT claim:** [results from collaborators, claims that would be overclaiming]
## Resume Bullet Seeds
[3-5 draft bullets in STAR format. These are seeds, not final text.]
[Use full-ownership verbs only for sole-contributor work. Hedge for shared work.]
1. [Action verb] + [what was done] + [quantitative result/impact]
2. [Action verb] + [method/tool developed] + [what it enabled]
3. [Action verb] + [scope — e.g., "across N systems"] + [outcome]
4. [Optional: collaboration-framed bullet]
5. [Optional: tool/infrastructure bullet]
Save the file. Show the user the complete extraction.
Progress: "Writing extraction for [short title]... [N] results identified, [M] bullet seeds drafted"
Phase 4: Update Inventory
Read and update knowledge_base/extractions/_INVENTORY.md.
Add a row to the inventory table:
| [filename] | [short title] | [user's role] | [status] | [primary methods] | [date extracted] |
Present the updated inventory entry to the user.
Phase 5: Next Steps
After extraction is complete, present:
- Extraction summary: [N] methods, [M] quantitative results, [K] bullet seeds
- Provenance flags: Any items that need special handling
- Suggested next action:
- If more papers to extract: "Run
/setup-extract [next paper path]" - If all papers done: "Run
/setup-build-kbto synthesize extractions into experience files and bundles"
- If more papers to extract: "Run
>>>>>> MANDATORY STOP <<<<<<
Present extraction summary. Wait for user feedback or next paper. You MUST wait for the user's explicit text response before continuing.
Batch Mode
If $ARGUMENTS contains multiple file paths:
- Process each paper through Phases 1-4 sequentially
- Ask Phase 2 clarifying questions for ALL papers at once (grouped) before writing any extractions
- After all extractions: present combined inventory update and summary
- Single STOP at the end (not per paper)