I made a Claude Code skill that turns any arxiv paper into working code. Every line traces back to the paper section it came from & any implementation detail the paper skips will be flagged, and not assumed. open sourcing it -

i kept iterating on paper implementations and my agent kept confidently filling in gaps i never asked it to fill. this helps me run an ambiguity audit before writing a single line. minimal citations done with - SPECIFIED -- directly stated in the paper PARTIALLY_SPECIFIED -- mentioned but ambiguous, quote included UNSPECIFIED -- our choice, alternatives listed, flagged at the exact line

you can give it an arxiv link and it works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and any agent that supports skills install: npx skills add PrathamLearnsToCode/paper2code/skills/paper2code github:

to reduce tokens may I suggest hugging face papers skill - from html to markdown a lot of tokens might be saved

What happens when the paper’s pseudocode is intentionally vague or skips the loss function details? Does it just flag everything or does it try to infer from the rest of the paper?

Great Work! @prathamgrv Here is a visual map + narrated walkthrough of paper2code.

Here’s a great test paper for you:

the "flags instead of assumes" part is the real value here. been implementing papers with Claude Code and the hardest bugs to catch are when it silently picks a default for something the paper left ambiguous — initialization schemes, loss weighting, that kind of thing. you don't realize it's wrong until training diverges 200 epochs in.

648 bookmarks vs 603 likes. researchers are saving this, not liking it. that ratio tells you everything about the actual use case. this is a tool, not content. the ambiguity flagging is the part that matters. confident hallucination is the default. the skill makes it explicit. that's the whole game.648 bookmarks vs 603 likes. researchers are saving this, not liking it. that ratio tells you everything about the actual use case. this is a tool, not content. the ambiguity flagging is the part that matters. confident hallucination is the default. the skill makes it explicit. that is the whole game.

This is the pattern that makes Skills so powerful — domain-specific workflows that chain tool calls. The paper → code traceability is the key part. Most AI code generation loses the "why." Keeping source links means you can verify and extend later. Skills are Claude Code's most underrated feature.

Flagging gaps instead of silently hallucinating them is the real differentiator. Most paper→code attempts just guess the missing parts and you end up debugging phantom implementations for hours. Curious how it handles papers where the math is precise but the systems details are completely hand-waved.

@Scobleizer Crazy if true, when I tried to vibe code based on research paper most of the time models fails at details, and as a result you get something non-functional. It needed lots of manual code editing to work

The 'flag what's assumed vs what's in the paper' part is the killer feature. Most AI code generation silently fills gaps with hallucinated logic. Making those gaps explicit changes it from 'hope this works' to 'I know exactly what to verify.' Open source this please.

@Pseudo_Sid26 This would be so useful. No more requesting for code repos now. 🗿

flagging skipped implementation details instead of silently assuming them is the key design choice. most paper-to-code tools fill in the gaps with hallucinated logic. this makes the gaps visible.

@anupamme

what do you use Cline agent for?

does this work only for ML paper or could be applied to other more complex topics?

Is the goal to identify gaps in a paper, or to produce a tech demo of the research, or both? (Either/both are really valuable, and a really good use case for skills.)

arxiv → working code is the research-to-product vacuum being filled. papers stay papers but now they become instantly executable proofs. compress months of implementation into minutes. that's the arbitrage 📄➡️💻

How do you know it’s implemented correctly? What verification is done? Does it auto produce results and compare?

the "flagged not assumed" part is key. so many paper implementations just guess the missing details and break silently. starring this

Nice

Interesting

i like this

This is brilliant !

automating the trace is neat, but how do you handle equations that span multiple lines or implicit assumptions? Also, any plan to benchmark the generated code against the original authors’ implementations? 🤔

Best work

arxiv to working code with citations intact. Big if true. The reproducibility game just got interesting.

nice demo! you'd like GitRank, our pipeline for generating feature branches after recommending papers based on the engineering challenges you face with your AI app

Try it on this. Do NOT try to simulate through the quotients. Go around them.

ok this is actually wild if it holds up… the “don’t assume missing implementation” part is where most of these fall apart. we tried something similar and @hud_hq made it obvious real quick where the generated code drifted from what the paper actually implied vs what was running.

Interesting 🧐

this would be so useful, thanks

Will have to try this then. Did you try RL papers ?

Useful!!