{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "generated": "2026-10-20",
 "id": "lobehub-awesome-rsi--check-rsi-claims-with-evidence-levels",
 "repo": "lobehub/awesome-rsi",
 "repo_url": "https://github.com/lobehub/awesome-rsi",
 "repo_slug": "lobehub-awesome-rsi",
 "title": "Check RSI claims against the list's three evidence levels",
 "page_title": "How to check RSI claims against the list's three evidence levels with Awesome Rsi",
 "summary": "Sort a set of self-improvement papers by task gain, retained gain, or improver gain.",
 "who": "A product or policy analyst who must judge whether a vendor or paper that claims self-improving AI actually shows lasting improvement.",
 "problem": "Self-improvement claims often report a better score on one task, which does not show that the system improved in a lasting way.",
 "outcome": "A table that places each candidate paper at the task gain, retained gain, or improver gain level, with a note on what evidence is missing.",
 "steps": [
  "Open the Scope & Terminology section and read the definitions of task gain, retained gain, and improver gain.",
  "Read the note on structural recursion versus demonstrated improvement and keep it in mind for each paper.",
  "For each candidate paper, find its entry in the README and read its one-line description.",
  "Open the paper and check whether its evaluation uses independent or held-out tasks and comparable resource budgets.",
  "Record the evidence level for each paper in a table with a column for missing evidence."
 ],
 "agent_prompt": "Using the awesome-rsi README at lobehub/awesome-rsi as the source of definitions, classify the papers named in <paper list> as task gain, retained gain, or improver gain. Output a table with columns for paper title, evidence level, and missing evidence. Verify that each classification is supported by the paper's own abstract, not only by its README summary.",
 "agents": [
  "any"
 ],
 "difficulty": "Intermediate",
 "time": "30 minutes",
 "basis": "readme",
 "caveat": "The README gives the evidence definitions but the level of each paper still has to be judged from the paper itself, since the list only gives one-line summaries.",
 "category": "Research",
 "tags": [
  "Research"
 ],
 "lang": "",
 "requirements": [
  "A web browser to open the GitHub README and the linked arXiv or journal pages",
  "Optional: a note-taking file or spreadsheet to track papers and their evidence levels"
 ],
 "risk": "none",
 "seen_in_the_wild": false,
 "mentioned_publicly": false,
 "risks": [],
 "best": false,
 "score": 0.9,
 "evidence": [],
 "url": "https://dedupedai.com/use-cases/lobehub-awesome-rsi/check-rsi-claims-with-evidence-levels/",
 "md": "https://dedupedai.com/use-cases/lobehub-awesome-rsi/check-rsi-claims-with-evidence-levels/index.md",
 "disclaimer": "Deduped lists open-source repositories that belong to other people. We do not own, maintain, audit, or vouch for any of them, and a repo appearing here is not an endorsement or a safety check. The use cases, steps, and prompts are written by AI and may be incomplete, outdated, or just wrong. Where a use case is marked \"Seen in the wild\", we link to public posts where someone described something similar, but we have not verified those posts and the use case itself is still our AI's own write-up. Use all of this at your own risk. Only run code, commands, or agents on systems and accounts you are authorized to use, and read the code and every command before you run it, especially anything that touches credentials, files, or the network. Nothing here is professional, security, legal, or financial advice. All trademarks and project names belong to their respective owners, and their use here does not imply affiliation. Content is provided as is, without warranties of any kind. Found a mistake, a safety problem, or something you want removed? Email hello@dedupedai.com and we will look at it promptly.",
 "api": "https://dedupedai.com/api/v1/usecases/lobehub-awesome-rsi--check-rsi-claims-with-evidence-levels.json",
 "api_version": "v1"
}