agentleFS
Sign inStart free
freemtyfreemty/labmate/skills/survey-literature/SKILL.md

survey-literature

Skill25 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a research question requires comparing multiple papers, mapping a field, or identifying evidence-backed gaps. Triggers on "survey the literature", "文献调研", "find papers about", "what's been done on", "literature review", "related work for".

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the local landscape and project findings before searching.

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    Follow ../../references/agent-routing.md for the domain-expert role.

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    Use available scholarly integrations, native search/PDF readers and source adapters.

    line 19

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Survey Literature

  1. Define the question, inclusion boundary, time range, and comparison axes.
  2. Read the local landscape and project findings before searching.
  3. Follow ../../references/agent-routing.md for the domain-expert role.
  4. Produce a source-backed comparison, synthesis, contradictions, unresolved gaps, and project implications. Distinguish source claims from synthesis.
  5. Save or update the landscape only when requested.

Coverage claims must name the search boundary. Do not call a convenience sample systematic or exhaustive.

Use available scholarly integrations, native search/PDF readers and source adapters. Record per-source coverage (abstract, full text, figure/table or media interval), publication/retrieval dates and locators. A talk or demo may supplement paper evidence but cannot replace missing method/results. For close reading, use the paper packet acquisition/validation contract in ../read-paper/references/paper-acquisition.md; retain its schema unchanged.

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.

Check your setup, free