Literature Map
Read ../references/novelty-boundary.md and ../references/evidence-contracts.md.
Build a comparison map, not a chronological survey.
Start with any local bibliography, PDF corpus, or prior notes. Label every consequential source by read state. Search current papers, official documentation, mature open-source systems, and production implementations to fill explicit gaps. Do not make detailed method or novelty claims from metadata or abstracts alone.
For each relevant work capture:
- stable identifier and read state,
- problem and semantic unit,
- method or mechanism,
- information, action, objective, and coordination boundary,
- assumptions about time, state, failures, heterogeneity, and scale,
- resource and deployment cost,
- evaluation setting and strongest supported result,
- limitation relevant to the current topic,
- whether the mechanism is reusable, adaptable, or incompatible.
Always identify the closest topic competitor, closest method competitor, closest adjacent work, strongest industrial/open-source baseline, and foundational predecessor.
Produce:
- topic state and method state,
- established-mechanism reuse/adapt/fail table,
- closest-work matrix organized by competing mechanisms or explanations,
- source passport and explicit coverage limits,
- baseline shortlist,
- likely reviewer objections,
- innovation-boundary statement,
- method design-space gaps that can feed
researchstack-method-synthesis,
- related-work paragraph structure.
If evidence is insufficient, label the relevant state unknown. Do not infer that a topic is exhausted from paper count, or that a method is novel because its application name differs.
1---2name: researchstack-literature-map3description: Related-work and mechanism-positioning skill for systems, networking, and AI papers. Use to map competing methods, assumptions, signals, decisions, claims, and evidence; identify established solutions; and define topic and method innovation boundaries with traceable source coverage.4---56# Literature Map78Read [../references/novelty-boundary.md](../references/novelty-boundary.md) and [../references/evidence-contracts.md](../references/evidence-contracts.md).910Build a comparison map, not a chronological survey.1112Start with any local bibliography, PDF corpus, or prior notes. Label every consequential source by read state. Search current papers, official documentation, mature open-source systems, and production implementations to fill explicit gaps. Do not make detailed method or novelty claims from metadata or abstracts alone.1314For each relevant work capture:1516- stable identifier and read state,17- problem and semantic unit,18- method or mechanism,19- information, action, objective, and coordination boundary,20- assumptions about time, state, failures, heterogeneity, and scale,21- resource and deployment cost,22- evaluation setting and strongest supported result,23- limitation relevant to the current topic,24- whether the mechanism is reusable, adaptable, or incompatible.2526Always identify the closest topic competitor, closest method competitor, closest adjacent work, strongest industrial/open-source baseline, and foundational predecessor.2728Produce:2930- topic state and method state,31- established-mechanism reuse/adapt/fail table,32- closest-work matrix organized by competing mechanisms or explanations,33- source passport and explicit coverage limits,34- baseline shortlist,35- likely reviewer objections,36- innovation-boundary statement,37- method design-space gaps that can feed `researchstack-method-synthesis`,38- related-work paragraph structure.3940If evidence is insufficient, label the relevant state `unknown`. Do not infer that a topic is exhausted from paper count, or that a method is novel because its application name differs.
lqf0624