AI Tools

academic-research-skills Tutorial: Installation, Literature Review, Citation Checks, and Uninstall

Install academic-research-skills in Claude Code, run a small literature review, verify citations and output files, troubleshoot missing plugins and shell-hook errors, and uninstall safely.

academic-research-skills Research planning, literature review, essay writing, review and revision into Claude Code Skills. It reduces documentation, but does not determine issues, methods or conclusions for researchers.

A small research problem runs through installation, output and reference verification below, focusing on whether it actually produces traceable material, rather than returning to a fluid summary.

Check before installation

Project recommends the installation of Claude Code 3.7.0 or higher versions of plugins:

1
2

claude --version
git --version

To export DOCX or PDF, alternative tools such as Pandoc and Tectonic are also needed; only Markdown is generated without having to install all layout dependencies.

In Claude Code:

1
2

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

Run after restarting Claude Code:

1

/ars-plan

The criterion for success is to enter into a guided dialogue around research themes and articles. If the command does not exist, check whether the plugin is installed successfully and the client version is available. Do not immediately copy the entire warehouse into a embedded Skill directory.

The repository contains several independent skills, each with its own SKILL.md. Copying the directory at the wrong level can produce .claude/skills/academic-research-skills/<skill>/SKILL.md, which may prevent Claude Code from discovering them as expected.

Create a minimal research directory

Example question: Does remote office affect the code review cycle of the software team?

1
2
3
4
5
6

remote-review-study/
├── input/
│   └── scope.md
├── output/
├── verified-sources.csv
└── research-log.md

scope.md Write your borders:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

# Research scope

- Population: professional software development teams
- Intervention: remote or hybrid work
- Outcome: pull request review time
- Time range: 2020-2026
- Allowed sources: peer-reviewed papers and official datasets
- Exclude: unsourced blog posts and vendor marketing claims

Run a practical literature review

You can start with a single summary command:

1

/ars-lit-review "remote work pull request review time software teams"

Additional binding:

1
2
3
4
5

Read input/scope.md.
First output the search query, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria; then organize the candidate literature.
Every candidate must include a title, authors, year, and a DOI or stable URL.
If a DOI cannot be verified, mark it unverified and do not invent a replacement DOI.
Write the results to output/literature-review.md and verified-sources.csv.

Don’t run the whole thesis line from the start. Check the quality of the source using 5 to 10 candidate literature to detect search and reference problems more quickly.

Validate the output files

Post-completion check:

1
2

find output -maxdepth 2 -type f -print
git diff -- output verified-sources.csv research-log.md

PowerShell:

1
2

Get-ChildItem -LiteralPath '.\output' -Recurse -File
git diff -- output verified-sources.csv research-log.md

Qualified outputs include, at a minimum, search scope, candidate sources, reasons for inclusion/exclusion, unverified items and date of generation. If there is only one missing summary text, it is clear that the process has not yet been adopted.

Handle citation failures

Assumptions for output:

1
2

Smith et al. (2024) found that remote teams reduced review time by 23%.
DOI: 10.0000/example.2024.12345

Verification steps:

  1. Access DOI solver or Crossref search DOI.
  2. Compared to title, author and year.
  3. Opens the paper in its original language, confirming that “23 per cent” corresponds to the same indicator and subject of study.
  4. If either link fails, mark the record as unverified, may not be used to draw conclusions.

verified-sources.csv Available:

1
2

title,authors,year,doi,url,status,checked_at,notes
Example paper,Smith et al.,2024,10.0000/example.2024.12345,,unverified,2026-08-02,DOI did not resolve

The model may give a real paper, but the results of another paper are given to it. So, “DOI can open” is just the first level and check the specific claims.

Ask the review skill to challenge the conclusions

The review process is run when the list is manually sampled. Readers are asked to focus on:

  • Whether evidence of objections is omitted from the scope of the search;
  • Whether the definition of review time is consistent across studies;
  • Whether relevance is written as causality;
  • (b) Whether the samples are from only a few open source projects;
  • Could not close temporary folder: %s

The review output should be kept as a separate document and not directly overwhelm the original. This will allow comparison of the evidence changes before and after the modification.

Troubleshoot shell hooks on Windows

The item contains optional Shell Hook. PowerShell cannot run directly without Git Bash .sh launcher, there may be a situation where every call is recorded in a book error.

The procedure is to install Git for Windows and confirm that Git Bash is available, or close the optional guard by project document. Do not invalidate all studies with hoook reporting errors; use them first /ars-plan and output file validation core capability.

Update and Roll Back

records the current version and one available output before the plugin is updated. The update is rechecked with the same sub-theme, comparing whether the order exists, whether the document structure has changed, and whether the reference to the verification rule is still valid.

If the new version is abnormal, save the log and plugin version and then unload and reload through the Claude Code plugin management interface. Do not delete the whole .claude Table of contents, with possible additional project configurations.

Uninstall safely

Unmount through plugin management command or interface academic-research-skills, and restart Claude Code, confirm /ars-plan No longer registered. Markdown, CSV and logs in research projects are user files and should not be deleted with plugins.

If manual symlink is installed, only four links pointing to the repository will be deleted, and the target will be identified as a symbol link before the operation, avoiding error in the actual directory.

Scope and limitations

  • The reference cannot enter the final argument without validation.
  • Ethical review and data policies still need to be followed when it comes to tested or sensitive data.
  • Skill ’ s quality doors are no substitute for expert review in the field.
  • Do not use " writing style adjustments " to mask AI ’ s use or circumvent academic integrity requirements.
  • The final author must be able to explain the methodology, the data and each of the main conclusions.

References: