agentleFS
chaobo8484chaobo8484/MathX-math-model-skills/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md

literature-review

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

结构化检索、去重与主题归类,把文献变成可追溯的研究缺口表。

84 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use pdf-explore, paper-narrative and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • JimLiuSkill

    pdf-explore

    Use this skill when the user has attached a PDF, paper, report, or other document and the answer needs content from more than one place in it: summarize the methods or any other section, compare sections, find where a topic is discussed, read a value or label off a figure or chart, or find/list/extract every instance of something across the whole document (datasets, benchmarks, citations, figures, table rows, accession numbers — including appendices). Skip it only for a single lookup of 1–4 pages quoted in your very next response — `read_file(pages=[...])` attaches pages as images that are dropped from context after one turn, so multi-section answers end up re-reading the same ranges repeatedly. Parses the PDF once in the Python kernel: `pdf_pages` (pages as persistent text), `pdf_outline` (TOC), `pdf_scan` (rank pages by relevance), `pdf_map`/`pdf_extract` (per-page summary / structured fields via parallel haiku calls). For PDF creation/manipulation, use reportlab/pypdf directly.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • JimLiuSkill

    paper-narrative

    Judge and reshape the STORY a paper's figures tell. Input is the work itself — manuscript (or abstract) + figure deck — no hand-written brief. `derive_paper_brief(abstract, captions)` extracts pitch/vision/per-figure-claims; a handling-editor reviewer on the full deck returns hook_verdict (would Fig 1 make me send this for review?), arc (hook→mechanism→evidence→application), figure_moves (panels in the wrong figure), missing_panels (concrete analyses to RUN), kill_list, and boldest_defensible_fig1. Hands per-figure claims to `figure-composer`. Load when writing or revising a paper.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • Norman-burySkill

    brainstorming-research

    Use before writing any paper - clarifies paper type, discipline, topic, methodology, and chapter structure through natural dialogue

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • lingzhi227Skill

    latex-formatting

    Handle LaTeX formatting, templates, and styling for academic papers. Set up conference templates (ICML, ICLR, NeurIPS, AAAI, ACL), fix formatting issues, manage packages, and ensure venue-specific compliance. Use when the user needs to set up a paper template, fix LaTeX formatting, or prepare for submission.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • lingzhi227Skill

    novelty-assessment

    Assess research idea novelty through systematic literature search. Multi-round search-evaluate loops with harsh critic persona. Binary novel/not-novel decision with justification. Use before committing to a research direction.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +6 more from JimLiu
  • +1 more from lingzhi227

The file

Files
SKILL.md

文献综述与研究缺口

先读仓库根目录的 CONTEXT.md(术语/单位/venue 默认),全文用它的词。

人触发的生产型技能,只做一件事:把一堆论文变成引言能引用的可追溯缺口表。不画定理依赖(那是 arxiv-literature-synthesis),不写论文(那是 paper-outline)。

Operating Posture

用户键入时运行,一篇论文一次。产品是缺口表,每行追溯到验证过的标识符(DOI/arXiv ID)。标准是可引用:审稿人顺任何一行摸过去,落到真实论文,且论文说的和表格写的一致。无引用的缺口是有表格边框的意见。

两种失败模式,第一种更糟:

  1. 编造参考文献。 像真的标题、错的年份、不存在的论文。每条标识符进表前对真实索引验过——无标识符,无行。
  2. 无缺口的综述堆。 十篇摘要结尾“有待进一步研究”。点不出具体缺失(方法 × 场景 × 证据)的综述产出的是读书笔记,不是缺口。

无验证标识符和点名的缺口不交表。无缺口,无综述。

Hard Rules

  1. 检索式记录。 数据库 + 检索式 + 日期 + 命中数,每串都有。“广泛检索过”不是方法节。
  2. 筛选标准先于筛选。 年限、 venue、语言、方法族——先定,一致执行,数量报告(检出 → 筛选 → 保留)。
  3. 一文一行,四列起步。 方法族、场景/数据、带数字的关键结果、作者原话或你验过的局限。无数字的行是占位,贴标签。
  4. 缺口写成方法 × 场景 × 证据。“尚无研究把 [方法] 用于 [场景] 并给出 [证据等级]”——三槽填满,槽槽追溯到表行。行支撑不了的缺口是编的。
  5. 主题归纳,不枚举。 归 2–4 个方法族或学派;族内比较(谁在哪赢、哪全败——全败区住着缺口)是综合。无比较的编年罗列是目录。

Build Sequence

1. 先和用户定范围

  • 研究问题一句话,venue 类型(MCM/国赛/journal),缺口用途(引言动机还是方法选择依据)。
  • gate:问题一句话说不清 → 问,不检索。无问题的检索注定漂移。

2. 检索、筛选、保留

  • 跑记录过的检索式;标题 → 摘要 → 全文逐级筛,每级计数。有 research-evidence 证据卡时优先复用其语料,筛选标准与归族仍归本技能。
  • 去重(预印/发表算一行)。标识符验证。停止规则备注(饱和:新检索式无新增保留)。

3. 制表归纳

  • 填四列表;归族;写族内 verdict(谁在哪赢、哪全败——全败区住着缺口)。

4. 点名缺口——gate

  • gate:缺口句三槽追溯到行。再写论文入口:这个缺口 feed 大纲哪节,一句话。

Never Ship

禁忌替代
引用没验证逐行标识符查过
检索没记录检索式 + 数量 + 日期
标准事后定筛选前定标准
无数字行不声明贴占位标签
“有待进一步研究”方法 × 场景 × 证据缺口
无比较的目录族 verdict + 全败区

Output

  • 缺口表——带标识符的行,按族分组。
  • 漏斗数——检出 → 筛选 → 保留。
  • 缺口句——可追溯,喂大纲。
  • 移交——服务大纲哪节。

Tone

立场鲜明、废话少。当正确答案是“你要的缺口这两篇已经填了——真正的相邻缺口在这”就直说。漏斗只剩 3 篇就报 3 篇,不要拿擦边凑数。

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.