
Compute various size metrics for a Git repository, flagging those that might cause problems - github/git-sizer

Cite This For Me
Citation Machine
Citation Generator
ZoteroBib
Scribbr Citation Checker
Formatically EDU
Instant Citation Tool by Formatically
Scholar Sidekick resolves DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs & arXiv IDs into citations (APA, Vancouver, IEEE, 10,000+ CSL styles), verifies citations to catch AI fabrication, and checks retraction & open access. Free web, REST API, Chrome extension, MCP server.

Which is more popular?
Based on our record, git-sizer seems to be more popular. It has been mentioned 1 time since March 2021.
Website, pricing, platforms and company facts side by side.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Website | github.com | scholar-sidekick.com |
| Pricing | — | |
| Platforms | — | |
| Company | — | 2025 |
| Listed in |
In their own words, as submitted to SaaSHub.


No description of git-sizer yet.
Scholar Sidekick is a fast, deterministic citation resolver, formatter, exporter, and verifier - built for researchers, clinicians, students, librarians, and AI agents. Paste any scholarly identifier - DOI, PMID, PMCID, ISBN, ISSN, arXiv ID, ADS bibcode, or a WHO IRIS URL - and it fetches the...
What each product offers, as listed by its team.


Possible disadvantages
An editorial look at what each product does well and who it suits.


Overall verdict
Why this product is good
Recommended for
Overall verdict
Why this product is good
Recommended for
How often each product is chosen within a category, 0–100% relative to the other.


As answered by people managing git-sizer and Scholar Sidekick.
Scholar Sidekick's answer:
Scholar Sidekick is identifier-first. Most citation tools want you to paste a URL or hand-fill a form; Scholar Sidekick takes a DOI, PubMed ID, PMCID, ISBN, ISSN, arXiv ID, ADS bibcode, or WHO IRIS URL and resolves it directly against authoritative sources (Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, Open Library, ADS).
It's also one of the only citation tools to combine free web tools, a documented REST API, a Chrome extension, and an open-source MCP server in one product - letting humans, scripts, and AI agents (like Claude) all pull citations from the same engine. Outputs are deterministic, with provenance headers showing exactly which style was used, whether it was cached, and whether any fallback occurred.
Scholar Sidekick's answer:
Scholar Sidekick's answer:
Scholar Sidekick's answer:
Scholar Sidekick started from a simple frustration: existing citation generators are either slow, ad-heavy, or limited to pasting article URLs and hoping the metadata is correct. None of them handled scholarly identifiers (DOI, PMID, arXiv) cleanly, and none exposed a modern API or could be called by an AI agent.
So Scholar Sidekick was built around three principles: identifier-first input, deterministic output, and open access. Free for humans on the web, free for AI agents via an open-source MCP server, and a modest paid tier for developers who need higher API volume. The goal isn't to be a flashy citation tool - it's to be the boring, reliable piece of citation infrastructure that just works.
Scholar Sidekick's answer:
Share your experience with using git-sizer and Scholar Sidekick. For example, how are they different and which one is better?
Recommendations tracked on public social media and blogs since March 2021.


Also there’s a cool project from GitHub you can use to help understand the size of git’s objects in your git repo https://github.com/github/git-sizer. This might help you determine what the best cloning strategy could be. Source: almost 5 years ago
Tracking Scholar Sidekick since May 2026.