45ck related-work-synthesizer
Purpose
Synthesize related work into a coherent narrative instead of a paper-by-paper list.
Trigger this skill when
- You are doing literature review, related work, comparative research, or evidence-driven design.
- The user needs structured research outputs instead of scattered notes or ad hoc summaries.
- You need traceable justification for claims, gaps, methods, or future directions.
Expected inputs
- research question
- theme map
- selected papers
- desired structure or section goal
Deliverables
- related work section
- theme-led structure
- transition points
Operating procedure
- Clarify the research objective, boundary, and decision the output is meant to support.
- Distinguish source evidence from inference, synthesis, or speculation.
- Produce the skill-specific artifact in a structured, reusable form.
- Preserve source-to-theme, theme-to-gap, or claim-to-evidence traceability where relevant.
- Recommend the next best handoff instead of collapsing the whole literature workflow into one output.
Quality gates
- The output is scoped to the actual research question rather than generic background.
- Contradictions, uncertainties, and evidence limitations are surfaced explicitly.
- The structure is reusable in a report, review, appendix, or research memo.
- The synthesis adds value beyond a paper-by-paper summary.
Handoff targets
- critical-analysis-writer
- future-work-generator
- reference-integrity-checker
Output style
- Prefer matrices, theme groupings, claim-evidence structures, and explicit comparison criteria.
- Keep facts, synthesis, and speculation distinct.
- Preserve traceability from conclusions back to sources or evidence buckets.
- Surface missing evidence and unresolved questions instead of smoothing them over.
Failure modes to avoid
- Do not confuse summary volume with analytical depth.
- Do not treat all sources as equally credible or equally relevant.
- Do not fabricate consensus where the literature is mixed or thin.
- Do not hide exclusion reasons, scope limits, or methodological weaknesses.