agentleFS
sergeeeysergeeey/Claude-cod-top-2026/skills/extensions/related-work-writing/SKILL.md

related-work-writing

Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Write Related Work sections that compare and contrast prior work with your approach. Organize by theme, cite broadly, and explain how your work differs. Use when writing or improving the Related Work section of a paper.

4 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 3

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    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. Common:

    Read the current paper draft (especially Methods and Introduction)

    line 24
  2. Common:

    Ensure every cited paper has a clear reason for inclusion

    line 42
  3. Common:

    Check that your work's novelty is clear from the comparisons

    line 43
  4. Very specific:

    Verify all \cite{} keys exist in the .bib file

    line 44

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.

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

Related Work Writing

Generate publication-quality Related Work sections with proper citations and thematic organization.

Input

  • $0 — Current paper draft or method description
  • $1 — Collected literature (BibTeX entries, paper summaries, or literature review notes)

References

  • Related work writing prompts and strategies: ~/.claude/skills/related-work-writing/references/related-work-prompts.md

Workflow

Step 1: Analyze the Paper's Contributions

  • Read the current paper draft (especially Methods and Introduction)
  • Identify the key contributions and novelty claims
  • List the technical components that need literature context

Step 2: Organize Literature by Theme

Group related papers into thematic clusters:

  • Each cluster should represent a research direction or technique
  • Common themes: problem formulation, methodology family, application domain, evaluation approach
  • Order themes from most to least relevant to your work

Step 3: Write Each Theme Paragraph

For each thematic group:

  1. Topic sentence — Introduce the research direction
  2. Describe key works — Summarize 2-5 representative papers
  3. Compare and contrast — How does each approach differ from yours?
  4. Transition — Connect to the next theme or to your contribution

Step 4: Refine

  • Ensure every cited paper has a clear reason for inclusion
  • Check that your work's novelty is clear from the comparisons
  • Verify all \cite{} keys exist in the .bib file
  • Aim for 1-2 pages (single column) or 0.5-1 page (double column)

Rules

  • Compare and contrast, don't just describe — "Unlike [X] which assumes..., our method..."
  • Organize by theme, not chronologically — Group by research direction
  • Cite broadly — Not just the most popular papers; include recent and diverse work
  • Be fair — Acknowledge strengths of prior work before stating limitations
  • Explain inapplicability — If a method could apply to your setting, explain why you don't compare experimentally, or add it to experiments
  • Use present tense for established facts — "Smith et al. propose..." or "This approach uses..."
  • End with positioning — The final paragraph should clearly position your work relative to all discussed prior work

Related Skills

  • Upstream: literature-review, citation-management
  • See also: survey-generation

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.