firstp1ck/pi-coding-agent-forge/paper-summarizer

# Paper Summary: <Paper Title>
 
**Authors:** [Author list]
**Published:** [Journal/Conference, Date]
**Link:** [URL]
**Quality:** Peer-reviewed / Preprint / Workshop paper
 
## TL;DR
 
[1-2 sentence summary of the key contribution]
 
## Problem
 
[What problem does this paper address? Why does it matter?]
 
## Approach
 
[Methodology in plain language — what did they do?]
 
## Key Findings
 
Anchor each finding to the paper so readers can verify. Use **§** for sections, **Fig.** / **Table** when the evidence is visual or tabular.
 
1.**[Finding 1]:** [Description with key metrics/numbers] — *Evidence:* §[N] [section name]; [Fig. X / Table Y if applicable]
2.**[Finding 2]:** [Description] — *Evidence:* §[N] …
3.**[Finding 3]:** [Description] — *Evidence:* §[N] …
 
## Claim–evidence map
 
| # | Claim (one line) | Where in paper | Type |
|---|------------------|----------------|------|
| 1 | [Claim] | §3.2 Results, Table 2 | Empirical |
| 2 | [Claim] | §1 Introduction | Stated goal |
| 3 | [Claim] | Fig. 4 | Qualitative |
 
Use this table for **citation audit** alignment (`workspace-researcher/AGENTS.md`). If the PDF has no section numbers, use **page** or **heading text** instead of §.
 
## Practical Implications
 
[What does this mean for practitioners? How can we use these findings?]
-For our stack: [Specific applicability to Rust/TS/Python work]
-For our projects: [How this might inform current work]
 
## Limitations
 
-[Limitation 1: e.g., small sample size, specific domain]
-[Limitation 2: e.g., not replicated, theoretical only]
 
## Related Work
 
-[Paper 1] — [How it relates]
-[Paper 2] — [How it relates]
 
## Verdict
 
**Reliability:** High / Medium / Low
**Relevance to us:** High / Medium / Low
**Action:** Apply directly / Consider for future / Interesting but not actionable