literature-review▌
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills · updated Jun 4, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
### Literature Review
- ›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"
| 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. |
Literature Review
Overview
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.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- Conducting a systematic literature review for research or publication
- Synthesizing current knowledge on a specific topic across multiple sources
- Performing meta-analysis or scoping reviews
- Writing the literature review section of a research paper or thesis
- Investigating the state of the art in a research domain
- Identifying research gaps and future directions
- Requiring verified citations and professional formatting
Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics
⚠️ 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:
- Generate at minimum ONE schematic or diagram (e.g., PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews)
- Prefer 2-3 figures for comprehensive reviews (search strategy flowchart, thematic synthesis diagram, conceptual framework)
How to generate figures:
- Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
- Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
- Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic
How to generate schematics:
python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png
The AI will automatically:
- Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
- Review and refine through multiple iterations
- Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
- Save outputs in the figures/ directory
When to add schematics:
- PRISMA flow diagrams for systematic reviews
- Literature search strategy flowcharts
- Thematic synthesis diagrams
- Research gap visualization maps
- Citation network diagrams
- Conceptual framework illustrations
- Any complex concept that benefits from visualization
For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.
Core Workflow
Literature reviews follow a structured, multi-phase workflow:
Phase 1: Planning and Scoping
-
Define Research Question: Use PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for clinical/biomedical reviews
- Example: "What is the efficacy of CRISPR-Cas9 (I) for treating sickle cell disease (P) compared to standard care (C)?"
-
Establish Scope and Objectives:
- Define clear, specific research questions
- Determine review type (narrative, systematic, scoping, meta-analysis)
- Set boundaries (time period, geographic scope, study types)
-
Develop Search Strategy:
- Identify 2-4 main concepts from research question
- List synonyms, abbreviations, and related terms for each concept
- Plan Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine terms
- Select minimum 3 complementary databases
- Use the parallel-web skill (
parallel-cli search) for initial scoping to quickly gauge the landscape before formal database searches
-
Set Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria:
- Date range (e.g., last 10 years: 2015-2024)
- Language (typically English, or specify multilingual)
- Publication types (peer-reviewed, preprints, reviews)
- Study designs (RCTs, observational, in vitro, etc.)
- Document all criteria clearly
Phase 2: Systematic Literature Search
-
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):
- Use
parallel-cli searchwith academic domain filtering for broad scholarly coverage - Run two searches: academic-focused + general to catch all relevant sources
# 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- Use
parallel-cli extractto fetch full content from specific paper URLs or PDFs found in search results
parallel-cli extract "https://arxiv.org/abs/XXXX.XXXXX" --jsonBiomedical & Life Sciences:
- Use
ggetskill:gget search pubmed "search terms"for PubMed/PMC - Use
ggetskill:gget search biorxiv "search terms"for preprints - Use
bioservicesskill for ChEMBL, KEGG, UniProt, etc.
General Scientific Literature:
- Search arXiv via direct API (preprints in physics, math, CS, q-bio)
- Search Semantic Scholar via API (200M+ papers, cross-disciplinary)
- Use Google Scholar for comprehensive coverage (manual or careful scraping)
Specialized Databases:
- Use
gget alphafoldfor protein structures - Use
gget cosmicfor cancer genomics - Use
datacommons-clientfor demographic/statistical data - Use specialized databases as appropriate for the domain
- Use
-
Document 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 articlesRepeat for each database searched.
-
Export and Aggregate Results:
- Export results in JSON format from each database
- Combine all results into a single file
- Use
scripts/search_databases.pyfor post-processing:python search_databases.py combined_results.json \ --deduplicate \ --format markdown \ --output aggregated_results.md
Phase 3: Screening and Selection
-
Deduplication:
python search_databases.py results.json --deduplicate --output unique_results.json- Removes duplicates by DOI (primary) or title (fallback)
- Document number of duplicates removed
-
Title Screening:
- Review all titles against inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Exclude obviously irrelevant studies
- Document number excluded at this stage
-
Abstract Screening:
- Read abstracts of remaining studies
- Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria rigorously
- Document reasons for exclusion
-
Full-Text Screening:
- Obtain full texts of remaining studies
- Conduct detailed review against all criteria
- Document specific reasons for exclusion
- Record final number of included studies
-
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
Phase 4: Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
-
Extract Key Data from each included study:
- Study metadata (authors, year, journal, DOI)
- Study design and methods
- Sample size and population characteristics
- Key findings and results
- Limitations noted by authors
- Funding sources and conflicts of interest
-
Assess Study Quality:
- For RCTs: Use Cochrane Risk of Bias tool
- For observational studies: Use Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
- For systematic reviews: Use AMSTAR 2
- Rate each study: High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low quality
- Consider excluding very low-quality studies
-
Organize by Themes:
- Identify 3-5 major themes across studies
- Group studies by theme (studies may appear in multiple themes)
- Note patterns, consensus, and controversies
Phase 5: Synthesis and Analysis
-
Create Review Document from template:
cp assets/review_template.md my_literature_review.md -
Write Thematic Synthesis (NOT study-by-study summaries):
- Organize Results section by themes or research questions
- Synthesize findings across multiple studies within each theme
- Compare and contrast different approaches and results
- Identify consensus areas and points of controversy
- Highlight the strongest evidence
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:
- Evaluate methodological strengths and limitations across studies
- Assess quality and consistency of evidence
- Identify knowledge gaps and methodological gaps
- Note areas requiring future research
-
Write Discussion:
- Interpret findings in broader context
- Discuss clinical, practical, or research implications
- Acknowledge limitations of the review itself
- Compare with previous reviews if applicable
- Propose specific future research directions
Phase 6: Citation Verification
CRITICAL: All citations must be verified for accuracy before final submission.
-
Verify All DOIs:
python scripts/verify_citations.py my_literature_review.mdThis script:
- Extracts all DOIs from the document
- Verifies each DOI resolves correctly
- Retrieves metadata from CrossRef
- Generates verification report
- Outputs properly formatted citations
-
Review Verification Report:
- Check for any failed DOIs
- Verify author names, titles, and publication details match
- Correct any errors in the original document
- Re-run verification until all citations pass
-
Format Citations Consistently:
- Choose one citation style and use throughout (see
references/citation_styles.md) - Common styles: APA, Nature, Vancouver, Chicago, IEEE
- Use verification script output to format citations correctly
- Ensure in-text citations match reference list format
- Choose one citation style and use throughout (see
Phase 7: Document Generation
-
Generate PDF:
python scripts/generate_pdf.py my_literature_review.md \ --citation-style apa \ --output my_review.pdfOptions:
--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 installed
-
Review Final Output:
- Check PDF formatting and layout
- Verify all sections are present
- Ensure citations render correctly
- Check that figures/tables appear properly
- Verify table of contents is accurate
-
Quality Checklist:
- All DOIs verified with verify_citations.py
- Citations formatted consistently
- PRISMA flow diagram included (for systematic reviews)
- Search methodology fully documented
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly stated
- Results organized thematically (not study-by-study)
- Quality assessment completed
- Limitations acknowledged
- References complete and accurate
- PDF generates without errors
Database-Specific Search Guidance
PubMed / PubMed Central
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:
- Use MeSH terms:
"sickle cell disease"[MeSH] - Field tags:
[Title],[Title/Abstract],[Author] - Date filters:
2020:2024[Publication Date] - Boolean operators: AND, OR, NOT
- See MeSH browser: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/search
bioRxiv / medRxiv
Access via gget skill:
gget search biorxiv "CRISPR sickle cell" -l 50
Important considerations:
- Preprints are not peer-reviewed
- Verify findings with caution
- Check if preprint has been published (CrossRef)
- Note preprint version and date
arXiv
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\""
Semantic Scholar
Access via direct API (requires API key, or use free tier):
- 200M+ papers across all fields
- Excellent for cross-disciplinary searches
- Provides citation graphs and paper recommendations
- Use for finding highly influential papers
Specialized Biomedical Databases
Use appropriate skills:
- ChEMBL:
bioservicesskill for chemical bioactivity - UniProt:
ggetorbioservicesskill for protein information - KEGG:
bioservicesskill for pathways and genes - COSMIC:
ggetskill for cancer mutations - AlphaFold:
gget alphafoldfor protein structures - PDB:
ggetor direct API for experimental structures
Citation Chaining
Expand search via citation networks:
-
Forward citations (papers citing key papers):
- Use
parallel-cli searchto 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 - Use Google Scholar "Cited by"
- Use Semantic Scholar or OpenAlex APIs
- Identifies newer research building on seminal work
- Use
-
Backward citations (references from key papers):
- Use
parallel-cli extractto fetch full text of key papers and extract their reference lists:parallel-cli extract "https://doi.org/10.xxxx/yyyy" --json - Extract references from included papers
- Identify highly cited foundational work
- Find papers cited by multiple included studies
- Use
Citation Style Guide
Detailed formatting guidelines are in references/citation_styles.md. Quick reference:
APA (7th Edition)
- In-text: (Smith et al., 2023)
- Reference: Smith, J. D., Johnson, M. L., & Williams, K. R. (2023). Title. Journal, 22(4), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.xxx/yyy
Nature
- In-text: Superscript numbers^1,2^
- Reference: Smith, J. D., Johnson, M. L. & Williams, K. R. Title. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 22, 301-318 (2023).
Vancouver
- In-text: Superscript numbers^1,2^
- Reference: Smith JD, Johnson ML, Williams KR. Title. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(4):301-18.
Always verify citations with verify_citations.py before finalizing.
Prioritizing High-Impact Papers (CRITICAL)
Always prioritize influential, highly-cited papers from reputable authors and top venues. Quality matters more than quantity in literature reviews.
Citation Count Thresholds
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 |
Journal and Venue Tiers
Prioritize papers from higher-tier venues:
- Tier 1 (Always Prefer): Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, PNAS, Nature Medicine, Nature Biotechnology
- Tier 2 (Strong Preference): High-impact specialized journals (IF>10), top conferences (NeurIPS, ICML for ML/AI)
- Tier 3 (Include When Relevant): Respected specialized journals (IF 5-10)
- Tier 4 (Use Sparingly): Lower-impact peer-reviewed venues
Author Reputation Assessment
Prefer papers from:
- Senior researchers with high h-index (>40 in established fields)
- Leading research groups at recognized institutions (Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxford, etc.)
- Authors with multiple Tier-1 publications in the relevant field
- Researchers with recognized expertise (awards, editorial positions, society fellows)
Identifying Seminal Papers
For any topic, identify foundational work by:
- High citation count (typically 500+ for papers 5+ years old)
- Frequently cited by other included studies (appears in many reference lists)
- Published in Tier-1 venues (Nature, Science, Cell family)
- Written by field pioneers (often cited as establishing concepts)
Best Practices
Search Strategy
- Start with parallel-web: Use
parallel-cli searchwith academic domains for initial broad coverage before querying specialized databases - Use multiple databases (minimum 3): Ensures comprehensive coverage — parallel-web counts as one source
- Include preprint servers: Captures latest unpublished findings
- Document everything: Search strings, dates, result counts for reproducibility — save all parallel-cli output to
sources/ - Test and refine: Run pilot searches, review results, adjust search terms
- Sort by citations: When available, sort search results by citation count to surface influential work first
- Use parallel-cli extract: Fetch full content from promising URLs found during search to verify relevance before full-text screening
Screening and Selection
- Use multiple databases (minimum 3): Ensures comprehensive coverage
- Include preprint servers: Captures latest unpublished findings
- Document everything: Search strings, dates, result counts for reproducibility
- Test and refine: Run pilot searches, review results, adjust search terms
Screening and Selection
- Use clear criteria: Document inclusion/exclusion criteria before screening
- Screen systematically: Title → Abstract → Full text
- Document exclusions: Record reasons for excluding studies
- Consider dual screening: For systematic reviews, have two reviewers screen independently
Synthesis
- Organize thematically: Group by themes, NOT by individual studies
- Synthesize across studies: Compare, contrast, identify patterns
- Be critical: Evaluate quality and consistency of evidence
- Identify gaps: Note what's missing or understudied
Quality and Reproducibility
- Assess study quality: Use appropriate quality assessment tools
- Verify all citations: Run verify_citations.py script
- Document methodology: Provide enough detail for others to reproduce
- Follow guidelines: Use PRISMA for systematic reviews
Writing
- Be objective: Present evidence fairly, acknowledge limitations
- Be systematic: Follow structured template
- Be specific: Include numbers, statistics, effect sizes where available
- Be clear: Use clear headings, logical flow, thematic organization
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Single database search: Misses relevant papers; always search multiple databases
- No search documentation: Makes review irreproducible; document all searches
- Study-by-study summary: Lacks synthesis; organize thematically instead
- Unverified citations: Leads to errors; always run verify_citations.py
- Too broad search: Yields thousands of irrelevant results; refine with specific terms
- Too narrow search: Misses relevant papers; include synonyms and related terms
- Ignoring preprints: Misses latest findings; include bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv
- No quality assessment: Treats all evidence equally; assess and report quality
- Publication bias: Only positive results published; note potential bias
- Outdated search: Field evolves rapidly; clearly state search date
Example Workflow
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
Integration with Other Skills
This skill works se
How to use literature-review on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add literature-review
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches literature-review from GitHub repository K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate literature-review. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /literature-review) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
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 development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ 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.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★52 reviews- ★★★★★Kaira Torres· Dec 28, 2024
Keeps context tight: literature-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 12, 2024
literature-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Advait Malhotra· Dec 12, 2024
Registry listing for literature-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Advait Singh· Dec 12, 2024
I recommend literature-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Mateo Mehta· Dec 12, 2024
literature-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 8, 2024
Keeps context tight: literature-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Neel Haddad· Dec 8, 2024
literature-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Daniel Liu· Dec 4, 2024
Useful defaults in literature-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Daniel Johnson· Nov 27, 2024
literature-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Anika Haddad· Nov 23, 2024
Registry listing for literature-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 52