Best fit
- 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。
affaan-m/ECC
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。
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026
Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md
According to the pinned SKILL.md from affaan-m/ECC: 学術的または技術的な文献の本体を検索、スクリーニング、統合、引用するタスクにこのスキルを使用します。
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"Best fit
Bring this context
Expected outputs
Key source sections
Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.
システマティック、スコーピング、またはナラティブな文献レビューの構築。
どのレベルの厳密さが必要かをユーザーに確認してください。未指定の場合、探索的作業にはスコーピングレビュー、公開または臨床的主張にはシステマティックレビューをデフォルトとします。
臨床または生物医学的作業には PICO を使用:
臨床または生物医学的作業には PICO を使用:
ソースを収集する前に検索プロトコルを作成します:
SkillSignal prompt templates
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: “使用するタイミング”, “レビューの種類”, “ワークフロー”, “1. 質問の定義”, “2. 検索計画”. 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
The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.
The source section “使用するタイミング” has been checked.
The source section “レビューの種類” has been checked.
The source section “ワークフロー” has been checked.
The source section “1. 質問の定義” 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
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.).
A separate implementation from K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailSystematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.
A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailFind, 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.
A separate implementation from xuzhougeng/wisp-science; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailFAQ
学術的または技術的な文献の本体を検索、スクリーニング、統合、引用するタスクにこのスキルを使用します。
The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
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.).
Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.
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.
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers o
学術的または技術的な文献の本体を検索、スクリーニング、統合、引用するタスクにこのスキルを使用します。
どのレベルの厳密さが必要かをユーザーに確認してください。未指定の場合、探索的作業にはスコーピングレビュー、公開または臨床的主張にはシステマティックレビューをデフォルトとします。
プロンプトを検索可能な研究質問に変換します。
臨床または生物医学的作業には PICO を使用:
技術的な作業には以下を使用:
ソースを収集する前に検索プロトコルを作成します:
最低限必要なデータベースセット:
レビューを再現可能にする検索ログを記録します:
| データベース | 検索日 | クエリ | フィルター | 結果 | エクスポート |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- |
| PubMed | 2026-05-11 | `("CRISPR"[tiab] OR "Cas9"[tiab]) AND "sickle cell"[tiab]` | 2020:2026, English | 86 | PMID リスト |
| arXiv | 2026-05-11 | `CRISPR sickle cell gene editing` | q-bio, 2020:2026 | 9 | BibTeX |
未加工の ID、URL、DOI、アブストラクト、注記を最終的な散文とは別に保存します。
以下の順序で重複を排除します:
削除された重複の数を記録します。
段階的にスクリーニングします:
システマティックな作業では、除外理由を記録します:
構造化された抽出テーブルを使用します:
| 研究 | デザイン | 集団/データ | 方法 | 比較対象 | アウトカム | 主要所見 | 限界 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 著者 年 | RCT/コホート/レビューなど | サンプルまたはコーパス | 方法 | ベースライン | 測定されたアウトカム | 結果 | 注意点 |
技術論文には、データセット、ベンチマーク、メトリクス、ベースライン、再現性の注記を含めます。
論文を一つ一つ要約するのではなく、テーマ別に証拠をグループ化します。
有用な統合の視点:
信頼度別に主張を区別します:
最終化する前に:
# 文献レビュー: <トピック>
作成日: <日付>
レビューの種類: <ナラティブ | スコーピング | システマティック | メタ分析>
検索期間: <日付>
データベース: <リスト>
## 研究質問
## 検索戦略
## 包含・除外基準
## 証拠のサマリー
## テーマ別統合
## ギャップと限界
## 参考文献
## 検索ログ