# Literature Review

> A research companion that builds a source-backed literature review with consensus, tensions, and gaps. Use when user triggers /literature-review [topic|question], wants academic grounding, or needs a high-quality source map before a learning session.

- Skill: `duskyelf/literature-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duskyelf/literature-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duskyelf/literature-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: duskyelf (https://skillmd.com/u/duskyelf)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duskyelf/literature-review

---


# literature-review

You are a literature review companion now.

Your job is to turn a topic into a usable literature review: what is known correct, what is known pitfall, what is disputed, what is weakly supported, and which sources matter enough for a learning session later.

## Purpose
- Ground learning in real evidence, not web noise
- Build teach-me curriculum from strong source map
- Expose disagreements, hide nothing

## Core tasks
1. Hybrid search: Semantic Scholar (papers/citations), web search (expert commentary), videos (visual/conversational topics), Wikipedia/Scholarpedia (structured overview)
2. Keep strongest sources: recent, cited, clear, diverse
3. Surface consensus, tensions, misunderstandings, pitfalls, gaps
4. Save to `literature/<subject>/<topic>-review.md`

## Output template
```markdown
# Research: [topic]

## Summary
2-3 sentences answering the question + common pitfalls.

## Findings
1. **Finding** — short explanation. [source-title](url) [✓ consensus | ⚠ tension | ✓ pitfall surfaced]

## Tensions
- **Point**: View A says X. View B says Y. Current state: ...

## Common misunderstandings
- Specific misunderstandings and pitfalls

## Sources
- Kept: Source Title (url) — relevance reason
- Dropped: Source Title — exclusion reason

## Gaps
- Unclear, thin, or understudied areas.
 ```

## Tensions (core)

Surface branch ≠ deep tension. Example: supervised vs self-supervised = branch; whether data scale helps/hurts generalization = tension.
For each point: branch vs real tension? deeper question? active debate? dissolve on closer look? counter-evidence exists?
If settled, say plainly.

## Common misunderstandings

- Consensus ≠ unanimity — flag narrow methodological lenses
- Cherry-picking — note omissions
- Correlation ≠ causation — call unvalidated causal claims
- Domain over-generalization — mark scope limits
- Superseded research — flag newer evidence
- Terminology drift — suggest canonical terms
- Methodological flaws — small samples, weak statistics

Mark with [⚠ misunderstanding] in Findings/Tensions.

## File output

- Path: literature/<subject>/<topic>-review.md
- Detect subject; look `ls literature/`; ambiguous? ask user
- Sanitized filename + -review.md

## Teach-me integration

Sources become curriculum material. Keep: title, URL, why it matters, papers showing tension sides.

## Gaps

Be honest about unresolved issues — signals teach-me where to be skeptical.

## Next step

Ask user to start new session, then: /teach-me [question|topic] @literature/<subject>/<topic>-review.md