affaan-m/ECC

literature-review

Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.

87Collecting
See how to use itView GitHub source
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"
Automated source guide

Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026

Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md

Turn literature-review's source instructions into a guide you can follow

According to the pinned SKILL.md from affaan-m/ECC: Use this skill when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.

npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"
Check the pinned source

Best fit

  • Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.
  • Synthesizing the state of the art for a research question.
  • Finding gaps, contradictions, or future-work directions.

Bring this context

  • A concrete task that matches the documented purpose of literature-review.
  • The files, examples, or context the task depends on.
  • Your constraints, target environment, and definition of done.

Expected outputs

  • A result that follows the pinned literature-review instructions.
  • A concise record of assumptions, inputs used, and unresolved questions.
  • A final check against the source workflow and relevant permission signals.

Key source sections

Read literature-review through these 5 source sections

Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.

01

Review Types

Ask the user which level of rigor is needed. If unspecified, default to a scoping review for exploratory work and a systematic review for publication or clinical claims.

SKILL.md · Review Types
Narrative review: broad synthesis; useful for orientation.Scoping review: maps concepts, methods, and evidence gaps.Systematic review: predefined protocol, reproducible search, explicit
02

Workflow

Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.

SKILL.md · Workflow
PopulationIntervention or exposureComparator
03

Literature Review:

Generated: Review type: Search window: Databases:

SKILL.md · Literature Review:
Do not treat search snippets as evidence.Do not mix preprints, reviews, and primary studies without labeling them.Do not omit negative or conflicting findings.
04

When to Use

Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.

SKILL.md · When to Use
Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.Synthesizing the state of the art for a research question.Finding gaps, contradictions, or future-work directions.

SkillSignal prompt templates

Provide the task, context, and acceptance criteria

These prompts were written by SkillSignal from the source structure; they are not upstream text.

Task-start prompt

Confirm source fit, inputs, and outputs before acting.

Use literature-review to help me with: [specific task]. Context: [files, data, or background]. Constraints: [environment, scope, and prohibited actions]. Before acting, check the pinned SKILL.md and explain which sections apply, what inputs are still missing, and what you will deliver.

Source-guided execution

Make the Agent explicitly follow the key extracted sections.

Apply the pinned literature-review source to [task]. Pay particular attention to these source sections: “Review Types”, “Workflow”, “Literature Review:”, “When to Use”, “1. Define the Question”. Preserve the important decision at each step. Mark facts not covered by the source as “needs confirmation” instead of inventing them. Then verify the result against my acceptance criteria: [criteria].

Result-review prompt

Check omissions, permissions, and source drift before delivery.

Review the current literature-review result: (1) does it satisfy the original task; (2) were any applicable steps or limits in the pinned SKILL.md missed; (3) did it perform any unauthorized file, command, network, or data action; and (4) which conclusions remain unverified? List issues first, then fix only what the source or user authorization supports.

Output checklist

Verify each item before delivery

The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.

The source section “Review Types” has been checked.

The source section “Workflow” has been checked.

The source section “Literature Review:” has been checked.

The source section “When to Use” has been checked.

Inputs, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit.

Unverified facts, compatibility, and outcome claims are clearly marked.

Any file, command, network, or data action has been reviewed.

Choose a different workflow

When another Skill is the better fit

FAQ

What does literature-review do?

Use this skill when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.

How do I start using literature-review?

The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which Agent platforms does it declare?

No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.

Repository stars
234,327
Repository forks
35,711
Quality
87/100
Source repository last pushed

Quality breakdown

Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.

87/100
Documentation28/30
Specificity22/25
Maintenance20/20
Trust signals17/25

Compare before choosing

Related Agent Skills and source variants

These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.

literature-review by k-dense-ai

Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

literature-review by xuzhougeng

Find, verify, and synthesize scientific literature — from "what's the seminal paper for X" through full multi-source reviews. Covers grounding claims in real retrieved sources, avoiding fabricated citations, handling retractions, and calibrating confidence to evidence strength.

literature-review by affaan-m

学術、生物医学、技術、科学的なトピックに対するシステマティックな文献レビューワークフロー。検索計画、ソースのスクリーニング、統合、引用確認、証拠ログを含む。

design-review by event4u-app

Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.

dask by k-dense-ai

Distributed computing for larger-than-RAM pandas/NumPy workflows. Use when you need to scale existing pandas/NumPy code beyond memory or across clusters. Best for parallel file processing, distributed ML, integration with existing pandas code. For out-of-core analytics on single machine use vaex; for in-memory speed use polars.

View original Skill.mdThis page is parsed directly from the repository SKILL.md without editorial rewriting. Collected: Jul 28, 2026 · about 3 min

Literature Review

Use this skill when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.

When to Use

  • Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.
  • Synthesizing the state of the art for a research question.
  • Finding gaps, contradictions, or future-work directions.
  • Preparing citation-backed background sections for papers or reports.
  • Comparing evidence across peer-reviewed papers, preprints, patents, and technical reports.

Review Types

  • Narrative review: broad synthesis; useful for orientation.
  • Scoping review: maps concepts, methods, and evidence gaps.
  • Systematic review: predefined protocol, reproducible search, explicit screening and exclusion.
  • Meta-analysis: systematic review plus quantitative effect aggregation.

Ask the user which level of rigor is needed. If unspecified, default to a scoping review for exploratory work and a systematic review for publication or clinical claims.

Workflow

1. Define the Question

Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.

For clinical or biomedical work, use PICO:

  • Population
  • Intervention or exposure
  • Comparator
  • Outcome

For technical work, use:

  • system or domain
  • method or intervention
  • comparison baseline
  • evaluation metric

2. Plan the Search

Create a search protocol before collecting sources:

  • databases to search
  • date range
  • languages
  • publication types
  • inclusion criteria
  • exclusion criteria
  • exact search strings

Minimum useful database set:

  • PubMed for biomedical and life-sciences literature.
  • arXiv for CS, math, physics, quantitative biology, and preprints.
  • Semantic Scholar or Crossref for broad academic discovery.
  • Domain-specific sources when relevant, such as clinical-trial registries, patent databases, standards bodies, or official technical docs.

3. Search and Log Evidence

Keep a search log that makes the review reproducible:

| Database | Date searched | Query | Filters | Results | Export |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- |
| PubMed | 2026-05-11 | `("CRISPR"[tiab] OR "Cas9"[tiab]) AND "sickle cell"[tiab]` | 2020:2026, English | 86 | PMID list |
| arXiv | 2026-05-11 | `CRISPR sickle cell gene editing` | q-bio, 2020:2026 | 9 | BibTeX |

Save raw IDs, URLs, DOIs, abstracts, and notes separately from the final prose.

4. Deduplicate

Deduplicate in this order:

  1. DOI
  2. PMID or arXiv ID
  3. exact title
  4. normalized title plus first author and year

Record how many duplicates were removed.

5. Screen Sources

Screen in stages:

  1. title
  2. abstract
  3. full text

For systematic work, record exclusion reasons:

  • wrong population
  • wrong intervention
  • wrong outcome
  • not primary research
  • duplicate
  • unavailable full text
  • outside date range

6. Extract Data

Use a structured extraction table:

| Study | Design | Population/Data | Method | Comparator | Outcome | Key finding | Limitations |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Author Year | RCT/cohort/review/etc. | sample or corpus | method | baseline | measured outcome | result | caveat |

For technical papers, include dataset, benchmark, metric, baseline, and reproducibility notes.

7. Synthesize

Group evidence by theme rather than summarizing papers one by one.

Useful synthesis lenses:

  • strongest evidence
  • conflicting evidence
  • methodological weaknesses
  • population or dataset limits
  • recency and replication
  • practical implications
  • unanswered questions

Separate claims by confidence:

  • High confidence: replicated, high-quality evidence across sources.
  • Medium confidence: plausible but limited by sample, method, or recency.
  • Low confidence: early, speculative, single-source, or weakly measured.

8. Verify Citations

Before finalizing:

  • verify DOI, PMID, arXiv ID, or official URL
  • check author names and publication year
  • do not cite a paper for a claim it does not make
  • mark preprints as preprints
  • distinguish reviews from primary evidence

Output Template

# Literature Review: <Topic>

Generated: <date>
Review type: <narrative | scoping | systematic | meta-analysis>
Search window: <dates>
Databases: <list>

## Research Question

## Search Strategy

## Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

## Evidence Summary

## Thematic Synthesis

## Gaps and Limitations

## References

## Search Log

Pitfalls

  • Do not treat search snippets as evidence.
  • Do not mix preprints, reviews, and primary studies without labeling them.
  • Do not omit negative or conflicting findings.
  • Do not claim systematic-review rigor without a reproducible protocol.
  • Do not use a single database for a broad claim unless the scope is explicitly limited to that database.
Source repo
affaan-m/ECC
Skill path
skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md
Commit SHA
4e973d3eaf92
Repository license
MIT
Data collected