### Literature Review
Works with
name: "literature-review"
description: "Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature..."
allowed-tools: "Read Write Edit Bash"
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionliterature-reviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches literature-review from K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate literature-review. Access via /literature-review in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
—
stars
| name | literature-review |
| description | 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.). |
| allowed-tools | Read Write Edit Bash |
| license | MIT license |
| metadata | version: "1.0" skill-author: K-Dense Inc. |
Conduct systematic, comprehensive literature reviews following rigorous academic methodology. Search multiple literature databases, synthesize findings thematically, verify all citations for accuracy, and generate professional output documents in markdown and PDF formats.
This skill uses the parallel-web skill (parallel-cli search) as the primary web search tool for broad academic literature discovery, supplemented by specialized database access skills (gget, bioservices, datacommons-client). It provides specialized tools for citation verification, result aggregation, and document generation.
Use this skill when:
⚠️ MANDATORY: Every literature review MUST include at least 1-2 AI-generated figures using the scientific-schematics skill.
This is not optional. Literature reviews without visual elements are incomplete. Before finalizing any document:
How to generate figures:
How to generate schematics:
python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png
The AI will automatically:
When to add schematics:
For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.
Literature reviews follow a structured, multi-phase workflow:
Define Research Question: Use PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for clinical/biomedical reviews
Establish Scope and Objectives:
Develop Search Strategy:
parallel-cli search) for initial scoping to quickly gauge the landscape before formal database searchesSet Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria:
Multi-Database Search:
Select databases appropriate for the domain. Always start with parallel-web for broad academic coverage, then supplement with domain-specific databases.
Web-Based Academic Search (parallel-web skill — START HERE):
parallel-cli search with academic domain filtering for broad scholarly coverage# Academic-focused search across scholarly sources
parallel-cli search "your research topic" -q "keyword1" -q "keyword2" \
--json --max-results 10 --excerpt-max-chars-total 27000 \
--include-domains "scholar.google.com,arxiv.org,pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov,semanticscholar.org,biorxiv.org,medrxiv.org,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov,nature.com,science.org,ieee.org,acm.org,springer.com,wiley.com,cell.com,pnas.org,nih.gov" \
-o sources/litreview_<topic>-academic.json
# General search for supplementary sources
parallel-cli search "your research topic" -q "keyword1" -q "keyword2" \
--json --max-results 10 --excerpt-max-chars-total 27000 \
-o sources/litreview_<topic>-general.json
parallel-cli extract to fetch full content from specific paper URLs or PDFs found in search resultsparallel-cli extract "https://arxiv.org/abs/XXXX.XXXXX" --json
Biomedical & Life Sciences:
gget skill: gget search pubmed "search terms" for PubMed/PMCgget skill: gget search biorxiv "search terms" for preprintsbioservices skill for ChEMBL, KEGG, UniProt, etc.General Scientific Literature:
Specialized Databases:
gget alphafold for protein structuresgget cosmic for cancer genomicsdatacommons-client for demographic/statistical dataDocument Search Parameters:
## Search Strategy
### Database: PubMed
- **Date searched**: 2024-10-25
- **Date range**: 2015-01-01 to 2024-10-25
- **Search string**:
("CRISPR"[Title] OR "Cas9"[Title]) AND ("sickle cell"[MeSH] OR "SCD"[Title/Abstract]) AND 2015:2024[Publication Date]
- **Results**: 247 articles
Repeat for each database searched.
Export and Aggregate Results:
scripts/search_databases.py for post-processing:
python search_databases.py combined_results.json \
--deduplicate \
--format markdown \
--output aggregated_results.md
Deduplication:
python search_databases.py results.json --deduplicate --output unique_results.json
Title Screening:
Abstract Screening:
Full-Text Screening:
Create PRISMA Flow Diagram:
Initial search: n = X
├─ After deduplication: n = Y
├─ After title screening: n = Z
├─ After abstract screening: n = A
└─ Included in review: n = B
Extract Key Data from each included study:
Assess Study Quality:
Organize by Themes:
Create Review Document from template:
cp assets/review_template.md my_literature_review.md
Write Thematic Synthesis (NOT study-by-study summaries):
Example structure:
#### 3.3.1 Theme: CRISPR Delivery Methods
Multiple delivery approaches have been investigated for therapeutic
gene editing. Viral vectors (AAV) were used in 15 studies^1-15^ and
showed high transduction efficiency (65-85%) but raised immunogenicity
concerns^3,7,12^. In contrast, lipid nanoparticles demonstrated lower
efficiency (40-60%) but improved safety profiles^16-23^.
Critical Analysis:
Write Discussion:
CRITICAL: All citations must be verified for accuracy before final submission.
Verify All DOIs:
python scripts/verify_citations.py my_literature_review.md
This script:
Review Verification Report:
Format Citations Consistently:
references/citation_styles.md)Generate PDF:
python scripts/generate_pdf.py my_literature_review.md \
--citation-style apa \
--output my_review.pdf
Options:
--citation-style: apa, nature, chicago, vancouver, ieee--no-toc: Disable table of contents--no-numbers: Disable section numbering--check-deps: Check if pandoc/xelatex are installedReview Final Output:
Quality Checklist:
Access via gget skill:
# Search PubMed
gget search pubmed "CRISPR gene editing" -l 100
# Search with filters
# Use PubMed Advanced Search Builder to construct complex queries
# Then execute via gget or direct Entrez API
Search tips:
"sickle cell disease"[MeSH][Title], [Title/Abstract], [Author]2020:2024[Publication Date]Access via gget skill:
gget search biorxiv "CRISPR sickle cell" -l 50
Important considerations:
Access via direct API or WebFetch:
# Example search categories:
# q-bio.QM (Quantitative Methods)
# q-bio.GN (Genomics)
# q-bio.MN (Molecular Networks)
# cs.LG (Machine Learning)
# stat.ML (Machine Learning Statistics)
# Search format: category AND terms
search_query = "cat:q-bio.QM AND ti:\"single cell sequencing\""
Access via direct API (requires API key, or use free tier):
Use appropriate skills:
bioservices skill for chemical bioactivitygget or bioservices skill for protein informationbioservices skill for pathways and genesgget skill for cancer mutationsgget alphafold for protein structuresgget or direct API for experimental structuresExpand search via citation networks:
Forward citations (papers citing key papers):
parallel-cli search to find papers citing a specific work:
parallel-cli search "papers citing [Author et al. Year] [paper title]" \
-q "citing" -q "[key author]" \
--json --max-results 10 --excerpt-max-chars-total 27000 \
--include-domains "scholar.google.com,semanticscholar.org,arxiv.org,pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov" \
-o sources/litreview_forward_citations.json
Backward citations (references from key papers):
parallel-cli extract to fetch full text of key papers and extract their reference lists:
parallel-cli extract "https://doi.org/10.xxxx/yyyy" --json
Detailed formatting guidelines are in references/citation_styles.md. Quick reference:
Always verify citations with verify_citations.py before finalizing.
Always prioritize influential, highly-cited papers from reputable authors and top venues. Quality matters more than quantity in literature reviews.
Use citation counts to identify the most impactful papers:
| Paper Age | Citation Threshold | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| 0-3 years | 20+ citations | Noteworthy |
| 0-3 years | 100+ citations | Highly Influential |
| 3-7 years | 100+ citations | Significant |
| 3-7 years | 500+ citations | Landmark Paper |
| 7+ years | 500+ citations | Seminal Work |
| 7+ years | 1000+ citations | Foundational |
Prioritize papers from higher-tier venues:
Prefer papers from:
For any topic, identify foundational work by:
parallel-cli search with academic domains for initial broad coverage before querying specialized databasessources/Complete workflow for a biomedical literature review:
# 1. Create review document from template
cp assets/review_template.md crispr_sickle_cell_review.md
# 2. Start with parallel-web for broad academic search
parallel-cli search "CRISPR Cas9 sickle cell disease gene therapy efficacy" \
-q "CRISPR" -q "sickle cell" -q "gene therapy" \
--json --max-results 10 --excerpt-max-chars-total 27000 \
--include-domains "scholar.google.com,arxiv.org,pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov,semanticscholar.org,biorxiv.org,nature.com,science.org,cell.com,pnas.org,nih.gov" \
-o sources/litreview_crispr_scd-academic.json
parallel-cli search "CRISPR sickle cell disease clinical trials treatment" \
-q "CRISPR" -q "sickle cell" \
--json --max-results 10 --excerpt-max-chars-total 27000 \
-o sources/litreview_crispr_scd-general.json
# 3. Search specialized databases using appropriate skills
# - Use gget skill for PubMed, bioRxiv
# - Use direct API access for arXiv, Semantic Scholar
# - Export results in JSON format
# 4. Aggregate and process results (combine parallel-cli + database results)
python scripts/search_databases.py combined_results.json \
--deduplicate \
--rank citations \
--year-start 2015 \
--year-end 2024 \
--format markdown \
--output search_results.md \
--summary
# 5. Screen results and extract data
# - Use parallel-cli extract to fetch full content from promising URLs
# - Manually screen titles, abstracts, full texts
# - Extract key data into the review document
# - Organize by themes
# 6. Write the review following template structure
# - Introduction with clear objectives
# - Detailed methodology section
# - Results organized thematically
# - Critical discussion
# - Clear conclusions
# 7. Verify all citations
python scripts/verify_citations.py crispr_sickle_cell_review.md
# Review the citation report
cat crispr_sickle_cell_review_citation_report.json
# Fix any failed citations and re-verify
python scripts/verify_citations.py crispr_sickle_cell_review.md
# 8. Generate professional PDF
python scripts/generate_pdf.py crispr_sickle_cell_review.md \
--citation-style nature \
--output crispr_sickle_cell_review.pdf
# 9. Review final PDF and markdown outputs
This skill works se
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
google-deepmind/science-skills
google-deepmind/science-skills
Keeps context tight: literature-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
literature-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Registry listing for literature-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
I recommend literature-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
literature-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Keeps context tight: literature-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
literature-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Useful defaults in literature-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
literature-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Registry listing for literature-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 52