v1.0.0 to v1.0.1

---

name: literature-review

description:

'Systematic literature review workflow for surveying, synthesizing, and

analyzing academic research. Covers the full lifecycle: scope definition, searching

academic databases (arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar), screening, structured

extraction, thematic synthesis, gap identification, and producing a cited review

document. Triggers on: "literature review", "survey the literature", "research landscape",

"related work", "systematic review", "scoping review", "synthesize the research",

"bibliography on", "find papers about", "review the state of the art", "research

gap analysis". Use this skill when surveying a research area, mapping a topic landscape,

identifying gaps, or writing a related work section.

'

metadata:

complements:

[arxiv-search, research-critique, manuscript-review, manuscript-provenance]

category: review

tags: [academic, literature, synthesis, citations]

difficulty: intermediate

---

# Literature Review

Systematic discovery, extraction, and synthesis of academic research on a defined topic.

## When to use this skill vs. others

| Need | Skill |

| ----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |

| Survey a research area, synthesize multiple papers | **literature-review** (this skill) |

| Critique a single paper's methodology and claims | research-critique |

| Audit a manuscript's formatting, structure, citations | manuscript-review |

| Verify a manuscript's numbers trace to code | manuscript-provenance |

| Search arXiv for papers matching a query | arxiv-search (utility) |

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Scope Definition

Before searching, establish the review boundaries:

1. **Research question** — What specific question does the review answer? Vague topics produce vague reviews. "What techniques exist for X" is weaker than "How do methods for X compare on metric Y across domains Z?"

2. **Inclusion criteria** — Define what counts:

- Date range (e.g., 2020–present)

- Publication type (peer-reviewed, preprints, both)

- Domains/categories (e.g., cs.CL, cs.AI)

- Minimum relevance threshold

3. **Exclusion criteria** — Define what does not count:

- Tangentially related work

- Non-primary sources (blog posts, tutorials) unless explicitly included

- Duplicate or superseded versions

4. **Expected output** — What form should the review take? Narrative synthesis, tabular comparison, gap analysis, annotated bibliography, or related-work section?

Present the scope to the user for confirmation before proceeding.

### Phase 2: Search & Discovery

Execute searches across available sources. Use multiple queries with varying specificity to avoid single-query blind spots.

**Primary source: arXiv (via arxiv-search utility)**

```bash

uv run --with arxiv python scripts/arxiv_search.py "QUERY" --max-results 30 --sort-by relevance

```

Vary queries systematically:

- Broad topic query: `"retrieval augmented generation"`

- Field-scoped query: `ti:retrieval AND abs:generation AND cat:cs.CL`

- Author-anchored query: `au:lewis AND abs:retrieval` (when key authors are known)

- Recency query: same terms with `--sort-by submitted`

**Secondary sources (via web search/fetch):**

- Semantic Scholar API: `https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/search?query=QUERY&limit=20&fields=title,authors,abstract,year,citationCount,externalIds`

- Google Scholar (via web search): `site:scholar.google.com QUERY`

- Connected Papers (for citation graph exploration): `https://www.connectedpapers.com/search?q=QUERY`

**Snowball strategy:**

- Forward snowball: find papers that cite a key paper (Semantic Scholar citations endpoint)

- Backward snowball: follow the references of key papers

- Use citation count as a signal for influence, not quality

### Phase 3: Screening & Filtering

For each discovered paper, apply the inclusion/exclusion criteria from Phase 1.

Produce a **screening table**:

| # | ID | Title | Authors | Year | Relevant? | Reason |

| --- | ---------- | ----------- | ------------- | ---- | --------- | ------------------------------- |

| 1 | 2301.07041 | Paper Title | Author et al. | 2023 | Yes | Directly addresses RQ |

| 2 | 2302.12345 | Other Paper | Author B | 2023 | No | Tangential — focuses on X not Y |

Rules:

- Screen on title + abstract first. Read full paper only for borderline cases.

- When uncertain, include. It is cheaper to drop a paper later than to miss it.

- Track exclusion reasons — they inform the review's limitations section.

- Flag papers that appear in multiple search queries as likely high-relevance.

### Phase 4: Data Extraction

For each included paper, extract a structured record:

```yaml

- id: "2301.07041"

title: "Paper Title"

authors: ["Author One", "Author Two"]

year: 2023

venue: "NeurIPS 2023"

research_question: "How does X affect Y?"

methodology: "Controlled experiment with N=1000"

key_findings:

- "Finding 1 with quantitative result"

- "Finding 2 with effect size"

limitations: "Single-domain evaluation"

relevance_to_rq: "Directly compares methods A and B on metric Y"

citation_count: 142

```

Extraction discipline:

- Record what the paper demonstrates, not what it claims to demonstrate.

- Distinguish empirical findings (data-backed) from interpretive claims (author's framing).

- Note methodology details that enable cross-paper comparison (datasets, metrics, baselines).

- If the paper is available via `pdf_url`, read it for extraction. Do not extract from abstracts alone for included papers.

### Phase 5: Synthesis

Transform extracted records into structured analysis. The synthesis method depends on the output format requested in Phase 1.

**Thematic synthesis** — Group papers by theme, approach, or finding:

- Identify recurring themes across papers

- Note where papers agree, disagree, or address different aspects

- Highlight methodological trends (what approaches are gaining/losing traction)

**Comparative synthesis** — Build comparison tables:

| Method | Paper(s) | Dataset | Metric | Result | Limitations |

| -------- | -------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | --------------- |

| Method A | [1], [3] | D1 | F1 | 0.85 | Domain-specific |

| Method B | [2], [4] | D1, D2 | F1 | 0.82 | Requires X |

**Chronological synthesis** — Map the evolution of the field:

- What was the state of knowledge at time T?

- What shifted and why?

- Where is the field heading?

**Gap analysis** — Identify what is missing:

- Questions raised but not answered by existing work

- Methodological gaps (no one has tried approach X on problem Y)

- Domain gaps (studied in domain A but not B)

- Contradictions between studies that remain unresolved

### Phase 6: Output

Produce the review document in the format specified in Phase 1.

**Standard structure for a narrative review:**

1. **Introduction** — Research question, scope, and motivation for the review

2. **Search methodology** — Databases searched, queries used, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening results (N found → N screened → N included)

3. **Findings** — Thematic or chronological synthesis of included papers

4. **Discussion** — Cross-cutting analysis, trends, contradictions, gaps

5. **Limitations of this review** — Search scope restrictions, potential biases, papers not accessible

6. **References** — Full citation list for all included papers

**Standard structure for a tabular review:**

1. Summary table (all included papers with key metadata)

2. Comparison matrix (methods × metrics × results)

3. Gap analysis table (questions × coverage)

4. Reference list

**Citation format:**

Default to `Author et al. (Year)` in-text with full references at the end. Adapt to the user's specified format (APA, Chicago, IEEE) if requested.

## Quality Checks

Before delivering the review, verify:

- [ ] Every included paper has a structured extraction record

- [ ] Every claim in the synthesis is traceable to at least one extracted finding

- [ ] The gap analysis identifies at least one concrete research opportunity

- [ ] The review acknowledges its own limitations (search scope, access, biases)

- [ ] Citation format is consistent throughout

- [ ] No paper is cited that was excluded during screening

- [ ] Contradictions between papers are noted, not silently resolved by picking a side

## Edge Cases

| Situation | Adaptation |

| ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| Very few papers found (<5) | The field may be nascent. Note this explicitly. Broaden search terms or check if the topic goes by different terminology. Consider adjacent fields. |

| Too many papers found (>100) | Tighten inclusion criteria. Consider limiting to top venues, recent years, or high-citation papers. Produce a scoping review rather than exhaustive review. |

| User provides a paper list instead of a topic | Skip Phase 2 (Search). Start from Phase 3 (Screening) with the provided list. |

| User wants a related-work section for their own paper | Tailor synthesis to position the user's contribution. Organize by approaches the user's work builds on, alternatives it competes with, and gaps it fills. |

| No full-text access to key papers | Extract from abstracts and note the limitation. Do not fabricate methodology details. Flag which papers were abstract-only in the extraction records. |

| Interdisciplinary topic | Search across multiple category prefixes. Note when different fields use different terminology for the same concept. |

| User asks for a "quick" literature review | Reduce Phase 2 to a single search query, Phase 3 to title-only screening, Phase 4 to abstract-only extraction. Label the output as a preliminary survey, not a systematic review. |