Skip to main content
A literature review is research work, and it leaves as little behind as a training run does unless somebody records it. probe paper is where it goes. Record during a review and again at its end — not afterwards from memory.
--discrepancies is the field that earns the entity. “The paper says warmup is linear; the repo’s scheduler is cosine with a floor” is the kind of thing that costs a week when it is rediscovered, and nothing else in a review captures it.

​
Provenance: how you got there

That chain is readable back as a graph:
Omit --via only when you genuinely cannot say. A review whose paths are recorded can be re-walked; one without them is a bag of citations.

​
Managing them

update leaves omitted fields untouched. "" clears a field — except --title and --source, which are required and reject an empty value.

​
In the dashboard

A project whose kind is research leads with Papers, right after Overview, and each row opens its own page at /papers/{id}. The page carries the captured Summary and Repo vs paper documents as full Markdown, and a Paper tab holding the provider-extracted abstract. Title, authors, publication year, venue and category chips are filled in from extraction where it succeeds; a pending extraction shows a spinner for about a minute and then goes quiet rather than pretending to still be working.
The Papers tab is read-only. Recording a paper is an act by whoever did the reading — through the CLI or an agent session — exactly as attaching a subproject is. An empty tab names the capture path rather than offering a form.

​
Finding papers to record

Agents have a find_papers tool over 40M+ abstracts, with search, read and similar modes.
find_papers wants natural language, not a keyword bag. A question-shaped description retrieves substantially more relevant papers than a bag of terms. Its categories filter is an AND, and its score rises as relevance falls — read the results, do not rank by the number.
See the MCP reference.