method-precedent

name: method-precedent description: Search for published papers that justify a specific methodological decision. Returns precedents diversified across empirical domains, with top papers read in full via PDF. argument-hint: "[decision] or [section:5-empirical-approach] [decision] or [domain: econ] [decision]"

Methodological Precedent Search

Find published papers that faced the same methodological decision and show how they handled it. This is NOT a literature review -- it is a targeted search for methodological precedents.

Input: $ARGUMENTS -- a description of the methodological decision, optionally prefixed with:

• [section:filename] -- read draft/sections/{filename}.tex for context (e.g., [section:5-empirical-approach])
• [domain: ...] -- constrain search domain (e.g., [domain: economics, finance])

Critical Rules

1. Scope discipline. Answer ONLY the query asked. Use project context to enrich search terms, never to expand the question. Do not get biased by papers already cited in the manuscript -- formulate queries independently.
2. Domain diversity. Cap at 2-3 papers from any single empirical domain. If results cluster, add cross-domain queries.
3. Citation integrity. Every author name, title, year, and venue MUST come from tool output (Semantic Scholar API, Crossref, or PDF text). Never fill metadata from training data. If unverifiable, mark as [UNVERIFIED].
4. Rate limiting. Semantic Scholar API allows 1 request/second. Do not fire MCP search calls in parallel -- run them sequentially.

Steps

1. Parse input and gather context

Extract from $ARGUMENTS:

• Section reference (optional): If present, read the .tex file to understand the decision in context. Use this to formulate better queries, but do NOT let existing text bias which papers you find or what conclusions you draw.
• Domain hint (optional): If present, use as primary domain filter.
• The decision: What specific methodological choice needs justification?

Then:

• Read CLAUDE.md to identify the target journal and domain (if no explicit domain hint).
• Grep through draft/references.bib for papers already cited that address this method. Note them but do not let them anchor the search.

2. Formulate search queries

Generate 5-7 queries with built-in diversity:

3. Search and collect candidates

Run searches sequentially (rate limit):

• MCP search_by_topic: Run 4-5 of the formulated queries with limit=10 each.
• WebSearch: Run 2-3 queries targeting Google Scholar, SSRN, NBER working papers.

Collect all unique results. From MCP results, retain: title, authors, year, DOI, venue, abstract, TLDR, isOpenAccess, openAccessPdf URL, paperId.

4. Filter to top candidates

From the collected results (typically 20-40 papers):

1. Relevance: Does the abstract/TLDR indicate the paper actually addresses this methodological decision (not just uses the method incidentally)?
2. Diversity check: Count papers per empirical domain. If >3 from one domain, keep only the 2-3 most relevant. If ALL results come from one domain, go back to Step 3 with cross-domain queries.
3. Select up to 5 for deep reading (Tier 1). Prioritize: (a) open access, (b) target journal domain, (c) discusses the decision explicitly, (d) top venues or high citation count.
4. Remaining relevant papers become Tier 2 (abstract-only reporting).

5. Download and read Tier 1 PDFs

For each Tier 1 paper:

1. Get PDF URL: Check if openAccessPdf URL exists from the API. If not, use Playwright to navigate to https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/{paperId}, take a snapshot, and extract the PDF link. If still not found, try WebSearch for an open-access version.
2. Download: curl -sL -o literature/{AuthorYear}.pdf "{pdf_url}"
3. Read: Use the Read tool with pages parameter targeting the methodology/empirical strategy sections (typically pages 5-15 for a 30-40 page paper; check table of contents on page 1-2 first). Extract:
   • The exact methodological decision the paper made
   • Their justification (quote directly when possible)
   • Alternatives they discussed and rejected

If PDF download fails (paywall, broken link), demote to Tier 2.

6. Compile and save report

Save to quality_reports/method_precedent_[sanitized_topic].md.

Report Format

# Methodological Precedent Search: [Decision]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Query:** [User's original question]
**Target domain:** [Detected or specified]
**Domains represented:** [List across all results]

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: consensus approach, key variations, cross-domain patterns]

## Tier 1: Full-Text Analysis

### 1. Author (Year) -- Short Title
- **APA citation:** [From tool-verified metadata only]
- **Domain:** [Empirical domain]
- **Their decision:** [What they chose]
- **Their justification:** [Why -- quote where possible]
- **Relevance to our decision:** [How it informs what we should do]

## Tier 2: Abstract-Only (Verify Manually)

### 6. Author (Year) -- Short Title
- **APA citation:** [From tool-verified metadata only]
- **Domain / Venue:** [Field and journal]
- **Brief note:** [What the abstract suggests about their approach]
- **Status:** [No open-access PDF / paywall / etc.]

## Consensus & Variations
- **Most common approach:** [What most papers do]
- **Notable alternatives:** [Different paths and why]
- **Cross-domain pattern:** [Consistent across fields or domain-specific?]

## BibTeX Entries
[Verified papers only]

## Caveats
[Papers that could not be accessed; search limitations]