git:20261013.b1594da to git:20261016.40659e0

---

name: surveying-literature

description: Use when finding related work a draft may have missed, checking whether a contribution has already been published, or mapping what a research area looks like. Triggers on "what related work did we miss", "has this been done before", "is our contribution novel", "map this field", "survey the literature on X", or a paper draft whose related-work section looks thin.

---

# Surveying Literature

## Overview

**Gap sweep**: from a draft, find the work it should have cited. The gap sweep is a search

method run by you, with web search; a script for the citation graph and for field maps is

optional (`reference/running-the-script.md`).

What a draft misses is mostly recent, topically adjacent rather than linked to its citations,

and indexed late. Measured on held-out drafts: nearly every hard reference that was found came

from a query naming a specific method, system or author; queries made of general words plus a

year found almost nothing, and searches past the eighth found almost nothing. Web search is

also the whole cost of a sweep: each `WebSearch` is a model call of its own. So the work is

eight precise queries, written from what you know, run four at a time, and candidates

confirmed against free indexes rather than searched for again.

## The method

1. **Know the contribution.** Read `main.tex` and its section files. The method section names

the technical ingredients, the experiments name the baselines and benchmarks, the

related-work section shows what is already cited. Write the contribution in one sentence

and list its three to five ingredients.

2. **List what you know.** The closest prior work you can name: methods, systems, acronyms,

the authors or groups you associate with this problem. Note why each is close. This list is

the raw material for the queries; a reference the draft does not cite is a candidate already.

3. **Write 8 queries.** Every query has one of these three shapes, and the set has at least two

of each:

| Shape | Example |

|---|---|

| A method, system or acronym you know + the problem | `NASWOT MeCo zero-cost proxy ensemble neural architecture search` |

| An author or group you associate with the problem + the ingredient | `Sutton Whitley Howe mutation rates (1+1)-EA pseudo-boolean` |

| A technical ingredient + the problem as the community names it | `determinantal point process client selection federated learning` |

The specific name is what makes a query find something; the problem words keep it on topic.

4. **Run the eight queries, four `WebSearch` calls per message.** Read the titles and collect

every plausible candidate as the result shows it. These eight searches are the paid part of

a sweep: each web search is a model call of its own, about a tenth of a dollar.

5. **Confirm the candidates offline.** Write the candidate titles, one per line, to

`candidates.txt` and run

```sh

python3 ~/.claude/skills/surveying-literature/assets/lookup-titles.py candidates.txt

```

It asks Crossref and arXiv, free, about three seconds per title, and prints one line per

title: `FOUND` with the exact title, first author, year, venue and DOI or arXiv id, or

`NOT FOUND`. Then check the draft's `.bib` for each `FOUND` title: a cited one is not a gap.

6. **Rank by closeness to the contribution**, most threatening first: same problem and same

method family, then same problem with a different method, then shared ingredients.

`FOUND` candidates come first, each with the identifiers the lookup printed; `NOT FOUND`

candidates come after them, marked unconfirmed, with the author and year the search showed.

A sweep is two search messages, one lookup call and the answer. The script's output, when you

ran it, is a list of additions you confirm like any other candidate.

## Field map

From a topic rather than a draft: `run-survey.py . --field-map "<topic>"` clusters the area

into lines of work and orders them chronologically. See `reference/running-the-script.md`.

## Measured result

Held-out benchmark on recent arXiv drafts with six real citations removed each, scoring

Recall@30 on removed key prior work the model could not name from memory. Protocol A

(2026-10-09, script-first version): 0.38 with the skill, 0.40 without. Protocol B (2026-10-10,

12-query search method, same 20 drafts): 0.52 against 0.34-0.40. Protocol B2 (2026-10-11,

20 new drafts): 0.26 against 0.20; over both sets 0.40 against 0.31, and the skill almost

never missed a reference the bare agent found. Estimate: +6 to +9 points on the references a

user is least likely to know, at 2.5 times the cost per run. Run cost was 0.36 $ plus 0.11 $

per web search (R² 0.99), and that version made 19 searches per run, half of them to confirm

## Limits

- **A gap sweep finds topically adjacent work. It cannot judge whether a paper actually

threatens the claim.** That is the reviewer's job: "cite and distinguish, or narrow the

claim", not "you were scooped".

- **Recall is bounded by what you can name.** On the held-out drafts, the references no run

found were classics outside the model's memory and preprints a few weeks old. If the user

knows the area, ask for the two or three names they would search; one named query beats

four general ones.

- **Anonymous and non-indexed work is invisible.** Workshop papers and preprints outside

arXiv are often in no index.

## See also

- `assets/lookup-titles.py`: confirms a list of titles against Crossref and arXiv (`--json` for records)

- `reference/reading-a-gap-report.md`: what each grade in the script's report obliges you to do

- `reference/running-the-script.md`: the citation-graph sweep, its engines, grading and failure modes

- `reviewing-paper-sources`: Phase 0 offers this skill as an optional module

- `comparing-papers`: consumes the shortlist

- `verifying-bibliography`: shares the retrieval layer in `_shared/scholarly`