prisma-search
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run a literature search that another person could reproduce — explicit query, named databases, retrieval date, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a PRISMA-style count of what was found, screened, and kept. Use whenever an agent gathers studies to answer a medical or scientific question.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- citation-faithfulnessSkill
- claim-extractionSkill
- conflict-detectionSkill
- evidence-coverageSkill
- meta-analysisSkill
- query-planningSkill
- rag-injection-defenseSkill
- source-reliabilitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
State coverage honestly: If the search is narrow, say so.
- Distinctive: line 43
Never fabricate the count or the date: If you did not run the search, you do not have a PRISMA flow — say that instead of inventing one.
- Distinctive: line 58
If a reader cannot rerun your search from this block, it is not finished.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
PRISMA Search
"I found some studies" is not a search — it is a claim with no way to check it. A reproducible search states exactly what was asked, where, when, and what was kept or dropped and why. Anyone repeating it should land on the same set. This skill makes an agent's evidence-gathering auditable the way a systematic review is.
When to use
Whenever the agent retrieves a body of literature to ground an answer — a drug question, an association question, a "what does the evidence say" question. Even a lightweight search benefits from stating its terms.
The rule
A search is only as good as its ability to be repeated. Record the five things that make it repeatable.
- The query — the actual search string(s), with the boolean/field structure, not a paraphrase of the topic.
- The databases — which sources were searched (e.g. PubMed, Europe PMC, a trials registry, GBIF-style records), by name.
- The retrieval date — the real date the search ran. Evidence changes; a search without a date cannot be reproduced or trusted later. Stamp the true date, never a placeholder.
- Inclusion / exclusion criteria — what qualified a record (study type, population, outcome, language, date range) and what disqualified it.
- The count — how many records were found, screened, excluded (with reasons), and included. This is the PRISMA flow.
The PRISMA flow to report
Identified (n = …) records from the named databases
↓ remove duplicates
Screened (n = …) on title/abstract
↓ exclude with reasons
Assessed (n = …) full text / full record
↓ exclude with reasons (list them)
Included (n = …) in the answerHow to do it well
- Do not let the harvester grab the wrong tokens. A gene name, a drug class, or a framing word is not a study. Only real records enter the count. (A search that "found 40 trials" where 12 were actually the query terms echoed back is a broken search.)
- Separate the query from the question. The user's phrasing is a starting point, not the search string. Build explicit terms — synonyms, brand/ingredient families, MeSH-style concepts — and record them.
- State coverage honestly. If the search is narrow, say so. A reproducible small search beats an impressive-sounding one nobody can rerun.
- Never fabricate the count or the date. If you did not run the search, you do not have a PRISMA flow — say that instead of inventing one.
Output
Lead the evidence section with the reproducibility block:
Query: ("drug A"[tiab] OR "brand A"[tiab]) AND ("outcome X"[tiab]) AND randomized
Databases: PubMed, Europe PMC
Date: 2026-07-14
Include: RCTs in adults, outcome X reported
Exclude: reviews, animal studies, n<20
PRISMA: identified 214 → screened 190 → assessed 22 → included 9If a reader cannot rerun your search from this block, it is not finished.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

