RRepoGEO

REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

Future-Scholars/paperlib

Default branch chore/official-sync · commit da10c04a · scanned 6/28/2026, 11:06:17 AM

GitHub: 2,223 stars · 106 forks

Scan history for this repo

Score trend below includes all ready runs (older left, newer right; scroll horizontally if needed). The table is collapsed by default—expand for newest-first rows, 10 per page.

Score trend (left → right: older → newer)

2 ready scans. Expand the table below for newest-first rows (10 per page, paginated).

AI VISIBILITY SCORE
40 /100
Critical
Category recall
0 / 2
Not recommended in any query
Rule findings
2 pass · 0 warn · 0 fail
Objective metadata checks
AI knows your name
3 / 3
Direct prompts that named your repo
HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

Action plan is what to do next — copy-pasteable changes prioritized by impact. Category visibility is the real GEO test: when a user asks an AI a brand-free question that should surface Future-Scholars/paperlib, does the AI actually recommend you — or your competitors? Objective checks verify the metadata signals AI engines weight first. Self-mention check detects whether AI even knows you exist by name.

Action plan — copy-paste fixes

3 prioritized changes generated by gemini-2.5-flash. Mark items done after you ship the fix.

OVERALL DIRECTION
  • highreadme#1
    Reposition core value proposition in README

    Why:

    CURRENT
    The 'Introduction' section starts with personal context before discussing competitors.
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Move the core value proposition and a summary of the 'Why not Zotero, Mendely?' section to immediately follow the initial description and links. For example, add a new `## Why Paperlib?` section right after the initial description, highlighting 'good metadata scraping capability' and 'modern UI' as key differentiators.
  • mediumtopics#2
    Enhance GitHub Topics

    Why:

    CURRENT
    academic, academic-paper, computer-science, computer-vision, management, math, neural-language-processing, paper-management, references, science
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Add the following topics: `citation-manager`, `reference-manager`, `desktop-application`, `cross-platform`, `electron-app`.
  • lowreadme#3
    Formalize comparison section

    Why:

    CURRENT
    The comparison is embedded within the 'Introduction' section under 'Why not Zotero, Mendely?'.
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Create a dedicated `## Comparison with Alternatives` section, perhaps using a table or clear bullet points, to detail how Paperlib's features (e.g., metadata scraping, UI) compare to Zotero, Mendeley, and JabRef.

Category GEO backends resolved for this scan: google/gemini-2.5-flash, deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash

Category visibility — the real GEO test

Brand-free queries asked to google/gemini-2.5-flash. Did AI recommend you, or someone else?

Same questions for every model — switch tabs to compare answers and rankings.

Recall
0 / 2
0% of queries surface Future-Scholars/paperlib
Avg rank
—
Lower is better. #1 = top recommendation.
Share of voice
0%
Of all named tools, what % are you?
Top rival
Zotero
Recommended in 2 of 2 queries
COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD
  1. Zotero · recommended 2×
  2. JabRef · recommended 2×
  3. Mendeley Desktop · recommended 1×
  4. Paperpile · recommended 1×
  5. Docear · recommended 1×
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    What are good open-source tools for organizing research papers and managing citations effectively?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. Zotero
    2. JabRef
    3. Mendeley Desktop
    4. Paperpile
    5. Docear
    6. Qiqqa

    AI recommended 6 alternatives but never named Future-Scholars/paperlib. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    How can I efficiently manage computer science conference papers and their citations?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. Zotero
    2. Mendeley Desktop (Legacy) / Mendeley Reference Manager
    3. ReadCube Papers
    4. JabRef
    5. EndNote
    6. Google Scholar Library

    AI recommended 6 alternatives but never named Future-Scholars/paperlib. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer

Objective checks

Rule-based audits of metadata signals AI engines weight most.

  • Metadata completeness
    pass

  • README presence
    pass

Self-mention check

Does AI even know your repo exists when asked about it directly?

  • Compared to common alternatives in this category, what is the core differentiator of Future-Scholars/paperlib?
    pass
    AI named Future-Scholars/paperlib explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • If a team adopts Future-Scholars/paperlib in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
    pass
    AI named Future-Scholars/paperlib explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • In one sentence, what problem does the repo Future-Scholars/paperlib solve, and who is the primary audience?
    pass
    AI named Future-Scholars/paperlib explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

Embed your GEO score

Drop this badge into the README of Future-Scholars/paperlib. It auto-updates whenever the report is rescanned and links back to the latest report — easy public proof that you care about AI discoverability.

RepoGEO badge previewLive preview
MARKDOWN (README)
[![RepoGEO](https://repogeo.com/badge/Future-Scholars/paperlib.svg)](https://repogeo.com/en/r/Future-Scholars/paperlib)
HTML
<a href="https://repogeo.com/en/r/Future-Scholars/paperlib"><img src="https://repogeo.com/badge/Future-Scholars/paperlib.svg" alt="RepoGEO" /></a>
Pro

Subscribe to Pro for deep diagnoses

Future-Scholars/paperlib — Lite scans stay free; this card itemizes Pro deep limits vs Lite.

  • Deep reports10 / month
  • Brand-free category queries5 vs 2 in Lite
  • Prioritized action items8 vs 3 in Lite