Claude Research Kit

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Research Kit — LaTeX requirement, how the citation gates work, the Literature Vault, and cross-tool export.

Do I have to use LaTeX?

The kit is tuned for LaTeX + BibTeX — the citation gate resolves \cite{key} against references.bib, the compile gate parses the .log, and the word-budget hook uses texcount. The writing discipline (the cardinal rule, the Question → Evidence → Draft → Verify → Cite loop, the review agents) is format-agnostic, but the deterministic hooks assume a TeX/BibTeX project.

How does it stop the agent from inventing citations?

Two layers. The advisory layer is CLAUDE.md's cardinal rule. The deterministic layer is hooks:

  • block-fabrication blocks writing a placeholder or fake-shaped DOI (10.xxxx, example.com) or an empty required .bib field — but never blocks an honest [CITE] prose placeholder.
  • citation-gate runs after every .tex/.bib edit: every \cite must resolve in references.bib, every \ref must have a \label.
  • stop-gate blocks completion when the last citation or compile gate failed.

When the agent lacks a source, it is instructed to write [CITE] or [VALUE — verify] and flag it — never to guess. The hooks let those honest placeholders through.

What is the Literature Vault?

An incremental, interlinked annotated bibliography — the evidence layer the cardinal rule depends on. /lit-ingest reads a source from sources/, writes a vault/summaries/<bibkey>.md page with claims + locators and verbatim quotes, and proposes the references.bib entry from the document itself (never fabricated). /literature-review and the fact-checker agent then read the vault for grounded evidence. See VAULT.md.

Can I use it with tools other than Claude Code?

Yes. CLAUDE.md is the single source of truth; ./scripts/convert.sh derives a cross-tool AGENTS.md plus Cursor / Windsurf / Aider configs. The hooks are Claude Code-specific, but the rules export everywhere.

Is my raw evidence safe from edits?

Yes. protect-sources blocks edits to sources/ (raw material), data/raw/, and frozen submitted/ snapshots. The RESEARCH_APPROVED=1 escape hatch bypasses it when you have independently verified, say, a .bib import.

How do I trust the hooks?

They're tested. ResearchKitBench ships 34 deterministic scenarios (no LLM, no network) covering every blocking hook, plus regressions (a \cite inside a TeX comment must not count; honest [CITE] prose must not be blocked). Run ./scripts/run-bench.sh; CI runs it on every PR.

Does it work for my field?

There are 4 field overlaysAI/ML, life sciences, social sciences, and medicine — that supplement the general docs with discipline-specific reporting standards (CONSORT, ARRIVE, APA 7, reproducibility cues). If yours isn't covered, the general discipline still applies — and PRs are welcome.