lit-review
Skill82 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub
Search and synthesize scientific literature from Zotero, arxiv, bioRxiv, Google Scholar, and Consensus. Use when framing a research question, designing methods, interpreting results, mapping the field landscape, or identifying future directions.
- Reads credentials
- Sends data out
19 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- kevmoo/kevmoo_skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- zbsaygin/econ-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- EtherealMingo/university-teacher-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Jeng-linLi/humanities-research-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- Zachariah9420/lit-review-skilltheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review-r, validate-bib and 7 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.
luischanciSkillreview-r
Run the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files.
Also in 4 projects that use this
luischanciSkillvalidate-bib
Validate bibliography entries against citations in all manuscript files. Find missing entries and unused references.
Also in 4 projects that use this
bidodevSkilldevils-advocate
Challenges decisions, plans, and code by systematically arguing the opposing side. Surfaces risks, pokes holes in assumptions, and stress-tests thinking before committing. Supports intensity levels (gentle, balanced, ruthless, linus) and works with conversation context or a specific file reference. Trigger on requests like "challenge this", "poke holes", "what could go wrong", "play devil's advocate", "linus mode", or "/devils-advocate".
Also in 4 projects that use this
shanggqmSkilldata-analysis
数据分析技能,提供结构化的数据查询、统计分析和报告生成工作流。当用户需要查询数据库、进行数据统计分析、生成分析报告时使用。按规范输出原始数据、计算结果、Markdown报告和HTML可视化报告。
Also in 4 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkillinterview-me
需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談:一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」,直到能預測使用者反應(約 95% 信心)才動工。適用:需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束,或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。
Also in 4 projects that use this
SentrySkillcommit
Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +3 more from luischanci
Other versions19 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 19
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow★ 1.7ksame name
- maxwell2732/paper-replicate-agent-demo★ 134same name
- maxwell2732/my-submission-formatting-agent★ 106same name
- sunnnybala/Rstack★ 69same name
- Zachariah9420/lit-review-skill★ 32same name
- kevmoo/kevmoo_skills★ 22same name
- BootLoops-ai/skills★ 17same name
- EtherealMingo/university-teacher-skills★ 16same name
- sshtomar/claude-code-skills-social-science★ 15same name
- zbsaygin/econ-skills★ 9same name
9 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ai-reviewSkill
- brieflySkill
- commit-batchingSkill
- commit-batchSkill
- create-alertSkill
- disclose-projectSkill
- discloseSkill
- evolve-claude-mdSkill
- figure-reviewSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- handoffSkill
- overbakedSkill
- pathfinderSkill
- pickupSkill
- recover-sessionsSkill
- repo-initSkill
- retroSkill
- reviewer-2Skill
- slack-messageSkill
- spot-aiSkill
- tab-setupSkill
- unstaleSkill
- worklogSkill
- write-new-skillSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 17 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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 25
Stop adding sources once coverage is sufficient for the mode.
- Distinctive: line 51
If any required var is unset, skip the Zotero write step and tell the user what to configure.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 17 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Conduct a literature search and deliver a structured scientific briefing. See REFERENCE.md for mode-specific guidance.
On invocation, ask the user
- Topic — what are we searching for?
- Mode —
frame/methods/interpret/landscape/synthesize - Starting point (optional) — any known papers, authors, or search terms to seed from?
Search order
- Zotero — existing library first; note what's already there
- Consensus — synthesized search for landscape and key claims
- Google Scholar — seminal works, citation counts, author networks
- arxiv / bioRxiv — recent and unpublished work
Stop adding sources once coverage is sufficient for the mode.
Output structure
1. High-level summary — 1–2 paragraphs: what the field looks like, what is settled, what is contested. Tag findings as established / debated / emerging throughout.
2. Topical review — key ideas, findings, and debates organized by theme. Apply mode-specific guidance from REFERENCE.md. Distinguish what is well-established, actively debated, and absent.
3. Papers — for each paper:
- Full citation (authors, year, title, journal/venue)
- Peer-reviewed or preprint — flag explicitly
- Key contribution in 1–2 sentences
- Relevance to the current topic and mode
4. Offers — always prompt:
- Save to
REFERENCES.md? — check if it exists and show existing entries first. Append using the template in REFERENCE.md. Never overwrite. - Add to Zotero? — list papers not already in the library, then ask. If yes, execute the steps below.
Adding papers to Zotero
Required env vars (set in ~/.claude/settings.json → env block):
ZOTERO_USER_ID— your numeric Zotero user ID (find it at zotero.org/settings/keys)ZOTERO_API_KEY— a Zotero API key with write access (same page)ZOTERO_INBOX_COLLECTION— name of the collection to file new papers into (e.g.Inbox)
If any required var is unset, skip the Zotero write step and tell the user what to configure.
Step 1 — resolve the collection key:
curl -s "https://api.zotero.org/users/$ZOTERO_USER_ID/collections?limit=100" \
-H "Zotero-API-Key: $ZOTERO_API_KEY" \
| python3 -c "
import sys, json, os
cols = json.load(sys.stdin)
target = os.environ.get('ZOTERO_INBOX_COLLECTION', 'Inbox')
for c in cols:
if c['data']['name'] == target:
print(c['key'])
"Step 2 — POST items. Build a JSON array; one object per paper. Use itemType journalArticle for peer-reviewed, preprint for arxiv/bioRxiv. Include collections: [\"<KEY>\"] from Step 1.
Minimum required fields per item:
itemType,title,datecreators:[{"creatorType": "author", "firstName": "...", "lastName": "..."}]DOIorurl(include both when available)collections:["<inbox-key>"]tags:[{"tag": "lit-review"}]
curl -s -X POST "https://api.zotero.org/users/$ZOTERO_USER_ID/items" \
-H "Zotero-API-Key: $ZOTERO_API_KEY" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '<JSON array>'Step 3 — report results. Parse the response: list titles that succeeded (HTTP 200 success key) and any that failed (failed key). A paper already in the library does not need to be re-added.
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.

