llm-for-zotero vs ScienceClaw
llm-for-zotero is much bigger: 3.4k stars against 1.0k. Over the days we have tracked them llm-for-zotero moved +41% and ScienceClaw +16.9%, so llm-for-zotero is growing faster right now.
llm-for-zotero leads on context depth and model freedom. ScienceClaw does not take any axis by a clear margin.
Stars and commit dates come from our own daily tracking. The six axes are read off each project's documentation by our review pipeline, so they describe what a project says about itself, not what we measured in its code.
Where they stand today
Deep Zotero-native integration that provides grounded, citation-linked paper chat and library-wide agent actions (reads, writes, tagging, notes) not offered by generic agents.
- Stars
- 3.4k
- Tracked growth
- +41%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 1d ago
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- AGPL-3.0
- Cost to run
- Your API key or local models
Self-evolving scientific skills plus a hard research protocol (SCIENCE.md) that enforces evidence-only citations and long-running, persistent research memory.
- Stars
- 1.0k
- Tracked growth
- +16.9%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 3d ago
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Free, self-host
Six axes, head to head
Each axis runs 0 to 5. The label under a score is what that project's own docs claim, not a category average.
| Axis | llm-for-zotero | ScienceClaw |
|---|---|---|
Context depth How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository. | ●●●●● Whole-library access | ●●●●● Session-limited |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● Citation gating & confirmations | ●●●●● Protocol enforced |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● Custom skills & settings | ●●●●● Extensive config & plugins |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Local model support | ●●●●● Fully local |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● Bring-your-own model/key | ●●●●● Single fixed provider |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● Easy install + API key | ●●●●● One-click setup |
Which one to pick
Pick llm-for-zotero if…
Zotero-native — pick this when you want a research assistant tightly integrated with your local Zotero library for grounded citations, file-based notes, and library-wide agent workflows.
- Context depth: Whole-library access (5/5 against 1/5)
- Model freedom: Bring-your-own model/key (5/5 against 1/5)
Pick ScienceClaw if…
Zero-hallucination — pick ScienceClaw when you need a research assistant that enforces verified citations, supports long-duration sessions, and adapts to your field over time.
What people want from each one
yilewang/llm-for-zotero
Questions people ask
Is llm-for-zotero better than ScienceClaw?
llm-for-zotero leads on context depth and model freedom. ScienceClaw does not take any axis by a clear margin. llm-for-zotero is worth picking when zotero-native — pick this when you want a research assistant tightly integrated with your local Zotero library for grounded citations, file-based notes, and library-wide agent workflows.
Which of llm-for-zotero and ScienceClaw keeps my code private?
llm-for-zotero: Local model support (5/5). ScienceClaw: Fully local (5/5).
What does each one cost to run?
llm-for-zotero: Your API key or local models. ScienceClaw: Free, self-host.
Full profiles: yilewang/llm-for-zotero and beita6969/ScienceClaw. Everything else in Research agents.