| 0 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a multi-level hierarchical classification system that organizes LLM agent research papers into primary categories (Survey, Technique For Enhancement, Interaction Paradigms, Application Domains) with subcategories, enabling structured navigation of a rapidly evolving research landscape. The system uses a README.md-driven taxonomy definition that maps papers into logical groupings by research methodology, application domain, and temporal evolution, making it easier for researchers to discover papers aligned with specific research interests without manual filtering.
Unique: Uses a human-curated hierarchical taxonomy with temporal tracking (2023-2025 research focus areas) and cross-cutting dimensions (enhancement techniques, interaction paradigms, application domains) rather than flat tagging or keyword-based indexing, enabling multi-dimensional paper discovery aligned with research evolution
vs alternatives: More structured and navigable than generic GitHub paper lists because it explicitly maps papers to research methodologies and application domains, making it faster for practitioners to identify relevant papers than keyword search alone
Maintains versioned paper metadata organized by publication year (parsed_v5 directory with JSON files per year) and tracks research focus evolution across 2023, 2024, and 2025, allowing researchers to identify which techniques, paradigms, and applications gained prominence in specific years. The system uses a time-series approach where papers are indexed by year and linked to their corresponding research focus areas, enabling analysis of how LLM agent research priorities have shifted over time and which emerging areas are gaining traction.
Unique: Explicitly tracks research focus areas per year (2023, 2024, 2025) with separate parsed metadata directories, enabling temporal analysis of research priorities rather than treating all papers as a static collection, and documents which techniques/paradigms were emphasized in each year
vs alternatives: Provides temporal context that generic paper repositories lack, allowing researchers to understand not just what papers exist but when specific research areas gained prominence, making it easier to identify emerging vs mature techniques
Enables filtering papers by enhancement technique categories (e.g., prompt engineering, chain-of-thought, retrieval-augmented generation, tool use, planning, memory mechanisms) by mapping papers to specific methodological approaches used to improve LLM agent capabilities. The system uses a technique-centric organization where papers are indexed by the enhancement methods they propose or evaluate, allowing researchers to find all papers related to a specific improvement strategy regardless of application domain or interaction paradigm.
Unique: Organizes papers explicitly by enhancement technique dimension (separate from application domain and interaction paradigm), allowing technique-centric discovery where researchers can find all papers on a specific improvement methodology across all application domains
vs alternatives: More effective than keyword-based search for finding technique-specific papers because it uses a curated technique taxonomy rather than relying on paper title/abstract keyword matching, reducing noise and improving precision
Classifies and organizes papers by interaction paradigm categories (e.g., single-agent, multi-agent, human-in-the-loop, tool-mediated interaction) to enable researchers to find papers addressing specific agent interaction models and communication patterns. The system uses a paradigm-centric dimension where papers are indexed by the type of agent interactions they address, allowing discovery of papers relevant to specific architectural interaction patterns independent of the enhancement techniques or application domains involved.
Unique: Treats interaction paradigm as an independent organizational dimension (alongside enhancement techniques and application domains) rather than embedding it within application-specific categories, enabling paradigm-centric discovery and comparison
vs alternatives: Provides clearer visibility into different agent interaction models than application-domain-focused repositories, making it easier for architects to find papers relevant to their specific interaction requirements
Organizes papers by application domain categories (e.g., game agents, autonomous systems, code generation, question answering, robotics) to enable researchers to find papers addressing specific real-world use cases and domain applications of LLM agents. The system uses a domain-centric indexing approach where papers are mapped to their primary application context, allowing discovery of domain-specific agent implementations, benchmarks, and evaluation methodologies.
Unique: Maintains application domain as a primary organizational dimension with dedicated category structure, enabling domain-specific paper discovery and benchmark identification rather than treating domains as secondary metadata
vs alternatives: Faster for practitioners to find domain-relevant papers than generic LLM repositories because papers are pre-organized by application context rather than requiring manual filtering by use case
Provides dedicated organization and curation of papers specifically focused on multi-agent systems, including agent coordination, communication protocols, emergent behaviors, and collaborative problem-solving. The system uses a specialized subcategory within the broader taxonomy to collect papers addressing multi-agent architectures, enabling researchers to focus on papers dealing with agent-to-agent interactions and collective intelligence rather than single-agent systems.
Unique: Dedicates a specialized category to multi-agent systems research rather than treating it as a subcategory of interaction paradigms, reflecting the distinct research challenges and techniques in multi-agent coordination
vs alternatives: Provides better visibility into multi-agent research than repositories treating multi-agent as just another interaction paradigm, making it easier to find papers on agent coordination and collective intelligence
Provides a download_pdf.py utility script that automates bulk downloading of research papers from URLs stored in papers_v5.json metadata, enabling researchers to build a local paper collection without manual URL processing. The script uses paper metadata to construct download requests and manage file organization, allowing researchers to create an offline research library indexed by the repository's taxonomy for local searching and analysis.
Unique: Provides a Python-based automation utility specifically designed for the repository's metadata structure (papers_v5.json) rather than generic PDF downloaders, enabling taxonomy-aware batch downloading and local collection organization
vs alternatives: More efficient than manual URL-by-URL downloading because it automates batch processing and integrates with the repository's metadata structure, though less robust than institutional paper management systems with error handling and access control
Maintains multiple versions of paper metadata (parsed_v4, parsed_v5 directories) with version-specific JSON schemas, enabling schema evolution and backward compatibility as the repository's data model changes. The system uses a versioning approach where each metadata version is stored separately, allowing researchers to access papers using different schema versions and supporting gradual migration to newer metadata formats without breaking existing workflows.
Unique: Uses explicit directory-based versioning (parsed_v4, parsed_v5) for metadata rather than in-file version markers, enabling parallel access to multiple schema versions and clear separation of legacy and current data
vs alternatives: Provides version isolation that single-file repositories lack, allowing tools to work with specific metadata versions without version negotiation, though lacks formal schema documentation and migration tooling
+2 more capabilities
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs LLM-Agents-Papers at 35/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities