Source profileQuality 87/100

affaan-m/ECC/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md

literature-review

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

Source repository stars
234,327
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-27
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

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

Best for

  • 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.

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "literature-review" from https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC/blob/4e973d3eaf92d97f8d2e2d8abb39d8bdc8711b38/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md at commit 4e973d3eaf92d97f8d2e2d8abb39d8bdc8711b38. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 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.

    Narrative review: broad synthesis; useful for orientation.Scoping review: maps concepts, methods, and evidence gaps.Systematic review: predefined protocol, reproducible search, explicit
  2. 02

    Workflow

    Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.

    PopulationIntervention or exposureComparator
  3. 03

    Literature Review:

    Generated: Review type: Search window: Databases:

    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.
  4. 04

    When to Use

    Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.

    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.
  5. 05

    1. Define the Question

    Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.

    PopulationIntervention or exposureComparator

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score87/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars234,327SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
affaan-m/ECC
Skill path
skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md
Commit
4e973d3eaf92d97f8d2e2d8abb39d8bdc8711b38
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

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.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing