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.
affaan-m/ECC/skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md
Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.
Decision brief
Use this skill when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review"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
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.
Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.
Generated: Review type: Search window: Databases:
Building a systematic, scoping, or narrative literature review.
Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.
Permission review
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
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 87/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 234,327 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Use this skill when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.
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.
Convert the prompt into a searchable research question.
For clinical or biomedical work, use PICO:
For technical work, use:
Create a search protocol before collecting sources:
Minimum useful database set:
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.
Deduplicate in this order:
Record how many duplicates were removed.
Screen in stages:
For systematic work, record exclusion reasons:
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.
Group evidence by theme rather than summarizing papers one by one.
Useful synthesis lenses:
Separate claims by confidence:
Before finalizing:
# 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
Alternatives
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
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.).
xuzhougeng/wisp-science
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.
affaan-m/ECC
Use it for research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.
event4u-app/agent-config
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.