Academic Obsidian archiving rules for Codex/Claude Code
A documented single-file academic archiving workflow connects selected papers and supplements to source-traceable Obsidian notes, version comparisons and research-method links.
L2Research workflow (workflow level, not a quality rating) Source: Repository-documented Outcome: Not empirically evaluated here
Research applicability
Specific source-supported academic paper identity/version/knowledge-base process with evidence-linked literature synthesis.
Getting started
Untested editorial guidance: read original source documentation and limitations, choose a suitable public/synthetic example, and plan independent source/output checks before any separately authorised trial. No trial performed.
Maintenance
Primary repository documents observed2026-10-19; future maintenance, current provider terms and live compatibility not verified.
License
Licence/reuse terms not audited; original missing-licence uncertainty remains qualified rather than excluding documentation.
Workflow & human oversight
Intended L2 for a fixed six-stage academic archive process. Researchers choose papers/questions/scope and confirm concrete plans; reading, identity/version checks, archiving, evidence-bounded linking and final review remain source-prescribed rather than verified enforcement.
Workflow level is not an evidence score; higher is not better evidence.
Approach
Chinese README describes INBOX/READ/VERIFY/ARCHIVE/CONNECT/REVIEW, cross-checking five identity cues, preserving version differences, source paths and findings-versus-inference boundaries. Users approve concrete changes; effect depends on agent reading/tools and human rechecking.
Limitations
Full Chinese README only; core llm-wiki-starter.md, images, agent tools and actual vault not executed/audited. Reviewed as a rule/reference workflow, not an installed plugin or automatic task. Human confirmation/source rechecking are prescribed, not observed. README local storage does not establish no external model egress; model/provider choices and permissions require separate review. Reference to Karpathy LLM Wiki is acknowledged lineage, not same resource/canonical substitution. AI editorial review only; no source code, models or installation executed, no production/status/publication changes.
Reproducibility
Timestamped public moving-default-branch documents preserved; no commit pin/atomic version guarantee. No source code/model/experiment executed or results reproduced.
Adoption requirements
An Obsidian-style folder plus a file-reading/writing agent environment are described. Read original rules/permissions and choose public/synthetic material before any separate trial; no file-agent invoked.
Comments
No comments yet.
Add a comment
Comments are held for moderation before appearing. Critical or corrective comments are welcome — especially evidence that an entry overstates what has been verified.