Academic Writer for Pi and oh-my-pi

Research applicability

Helps organize source-grounded humanities writing and revision; structural citation checks do not establish scholarly support or valid arguments.

Getting started

Editorial suggestion, not tested: read the current repository README, configure the appropriate harness and source access, initialize academic-setup, and trial academic-write on nonconfidential sources. Verify each quotation, argument and citation before export.

Maintenance

Current documentation retrieved; maintenance cadence and operational reliability not evaluated.

License

README license statement only; license file and dependency terms not audited.

Workflow & human oversight

Resource-level automation is unspecified; researchers choose sources, approve interpretations and remain responsible for results.

Workflow level is not an evidence score; higher is not better evidence.

Approach

The documented workflow asks the researcher to confirm evidence cards and approve an argument before freezing article-specific evidence bundles. It describes local-file ingestion, optional Zotero integration and Pandoc export.

Limitations

README-only review, no source-code audit or execution. README headline assurances about citation verification do not establish factual correctness: the same README states that citation audit does not prove support. Original-source checking, authorship policies and model/provider privacy review remain necessary. Queue metadata says Claude Code plugin; current README describes the Pi/oh-my-pi port.

Reproducibility

README source review only; no installation, tests, model runs or outcome reproduction.

Adoption requirements

Pi with its documented companion packages or oh-my-pi; access to a configured model and permitted source materials. Pandoc is needed for document export; PDF additionally needs a supported TeX engine. Zotero is optional.