Urban Exposure Review Radar Workflow
This skill turns a broad geography + sport + urban health idea into a reproducible review, frontier radar, or review-informed empirical research plan.
It combines two transferable patterns:
- review workflow discipline: project structure, search, screening, extraction, synthesis, drafting, audit, citation export;
- research radar discipline: current-source scanning, remote-sensing / CV transfer analysis, ranked reading queues, publishable idea generation.
Output Contract
For every substantial request, return these blocks unless the user asks for a smaller answer:
研究定位: review type, target journal route, contribution boundary.流程路线: staged workflow with inputs, outputs, and checkpoints.检索/雷达策略: formal databases and, when needed, frontier sources.提取与编码: variables, coding fields, quality or bias checks.分析与图表: bibliometric, evidence-map, spatial, remote-sensing, or health-linkage outputs.写作与门控: manuscript structure, claim-evidence audit, citation and genre checks.风险与下一步: failure modes, fallback, and the next concrete action.
If the user asks for an executable setup, create or recommend a project scaffold using scripts/create_review_radar_scaffold.py.
Workflow
Classify the task
- Choose exactly one primary route: narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, bibliometric + critical review, frontier radar, empirical study design, or hybrid.
- If the route is ambiguous, stop at a checkpoint and ask the user to choose.
- Read
references/workflow_playbook.md.
Set the journal and contribution boundary
- SCS / Cities: emphasize urban governance, planning mechanism, spatial equity, sustainability, policy agenda.
- Health & Place / Environment International / Environmental Research: emphasize exposure validity, health outcome definition, confounding, causal caution.
- Urban Forestry & Urban Greening / Landscape and Urban Planning: emphasize green infrastructure, landscape planning, ecosystem and social benefits.
- Nature-family urban/health outlets: require strong conceptual novelty, data credibility, mechanism, and generalizable contribution.
Separate formal review search from frontier radar
- Formal review search uses reproducible databases, queries, dates, filters, deduplication, and screening reasons.
- Frontier radar uses current sources such as arXiv, OpenReview, CVF, GitHub, Papers with Code, Hugging Face, benchmark pages, and conference workshops.
- Do not merge radar items into a systematic review corpus unless they pass the same inclusion criteria.
Build the evidence structure
- For reviews: design screening table, extraction table, coding framework, evidence map, and claim-evidence map.
- For bibliometrics: stabilize scope before CiteSpace, VOSviewer, or bibliometrix analysis.
- For remote sensing: record sensor, spatial resolution, temporal window, index/model, validation data, uncertainty, and scale.
- For health linkage: record outcome definition, exposure window, confounders, spatial linkage unit, population strata, ethics and privacy limits.
Synthesize by argument, not by paper order
- Organize by concept, measurement, method, population, exposure pathway, equity dimension, and planning implication.
- Use bibliometric maps and radar scans as supporting evidence, not as the sole contribution.
- Once a formal review corpus or evidence-synthesis route is selected, hand off to
sport-geography-review-bibliometric; do not hand off tosport-geography-sci-writingmerely because the topic concerns green/heat exposure, urban health, or spatial equity. - Keep
sport-geography-sci-writingfor the separate empirical-manuscript route based on the user's own data, methods, and results.
Gate before writing
- Confirm enough evidence exists for the selected route.
- Confirm every planned figure answers a research question.
- Confirm causal language is supported by study design.
- Confirm target journal route fits the evidence.
Write and audit
- Draft section by section from extraction notes or verified source material.
- Run claim-evidence audit for numbers, datasets, methods, effect directions, and policy claims.
- Run genre audit: narrative, systematic, scoping, and bibliometric reviews use different language.
- Run citation audit before Word/Pandoc/Zotero export.
Route Decision Table
Use this table before producing a plan. If two rows fit equally well, ask the user to choose before proceeding.
| User intent | Primary route | Required evidence | Main output |
|---|---|---|---|
| "热点、知识图谱、CiteSpace、VOSviewer、bibliometrix" | Bibliometric + critical review | Stable WoS/Scopus records plus manual coding | Search protocol, bibliometric plan, coding framework, policy agenda |
| "严格综述、PRISMA、健康影响证据" | Systematic review | Reproducible database search, screening reasons, extraction and bias/risk checks | Protocol, PRISMA table, extraction schema, evidence synthesis |
| "这个领域有哪些研究、范围和空白" | Scoping review | Broad transparent search and charting table | Evidence map, concept/method taxonomy, research agenda |
| "写一篇高水平综述但不做穷尽统计" | Narrative / critical review | Curated high-quality literature and explicit inclusion logic | Argument map, conceptual framework, critical synthesis |
| "最近有什么新方法、新论文、新项目" | Frontier radar | Current web sources with dates and source links | Ranked candidates, deep dives, CV-to-RS transfer notes, ideas |
| "设计实证论文/基金选题" | Review-informed empirical design | Literature gap plus feasible data and method path | Hypothesis, data plan, method, validation, target journal |
Journal Evidence Gate
Bind evidence standard to the target journal before writing.
| Journal route | Minimum contribution | Evidence risks to audit | Required writing emphasis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable Cities and Society / Cities | Urban governance, planning mechanism, sustainability or equity agenda | Descriptive maps without policy mechanism; weak city-scale implication | Explain how exposure/accessibility evidence changes planning decisions |
| Environment International / Environmental Research | Valid exposure-health linkage and confounding control | Ecological fallacy, temporal mismatch, over-causal language | Define exposure window, outcome, model, confounders, uncertainty |
| Health & Place | Place-health mechanism and population heterogeneity | Thin spatial theory; generic health claims | Connect place, social inequality, behavior, and health pathways |
| Urban Forestry & Urban Greening / Landscape and Urban Planning | Green infrastructure or landscape planning contribution | Green quantity treated as quality; weak design implication | Separate exposure, quality, use, and planning levers |
| Nature-family urban/health journals | Generalizable conceptual or empirical advance | Local descriptive case without broader mechanism | State transferable theory, data credibility, mechanism, and limits |
Direction Modules
Use the relevant module from references/workflow_playbook.md:
M1: bibliometric + critical review.M2: systematic review.M3: scoping review.M4: green exposure / sports park exposure.M5: green park / sports facility accessibility.M6: remote-sensing heat exposure.M7: heat-green compound exposure.M8: urban exposure + public health or medical databases.M9: geospatial AI / CV-to-remote-sensing frontier radar.
Academic Research Suite Subskill
When the request needs a general academic research pipeline beyond the urban-exposure domain workflow, use the vendored subskill at subskills/academic-research-suite/SKILL.md.
Use this subskill for:
- deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, or fact-checking beyond the domain route table;
- paper outlining, abstract drafting, revision planning, citation checking, disclosure wording, LaTeX/DOCX/PDF formatting guidance;
- peer-review simulation, editorial decision support, reviewer-response roadmaps, or re-review after revision;
- full research-to-paper pipelines, integrity gates, Material Passport style provenance, or experiment planning/validation;
- Claude-style ARS aliases such as
/ars-plan,ars-plan,/ars-lit-review,/ars-reviewer,/ars-citation-check,/ars-revision, and/ars-full.
Routing rule:
- First decide the urban-exposure route and journal evidence gate from this parent skill.
- If ARS is needed, read only
subskills/academic-research-suite/SKILL.mdfirst. - Follow the ARS router there to load a single
WORKFLOW.mdundersubskills/academic-research-suite/ars/. - Do not load the whole vendored suite unless the user explicitly asks for a package audit or update.
- Keep domain-specific constraints from this parent skill in force: exposure/accessibility/use are not interchangeable, causal language must match study design, and formal review corpus rules remain separate from frontier radar.
Source and license:
- The subskill vendors the Codex-native package
Imbad0202/academic-research-skills-codexv3.24.2, which is the Codex sibling distribution ofImbad0202/academic-research-skills. - Upstream ARS content recorded in
subskills/academic-research-suite/manifest.jsontracksImbad0202/academic-research-skills@fd5ff1b858374219b4d342e38587b66e18f61cbd. - The vendored package is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. Preserve
subskills/academic-research-suite/LICENSE, attribution, non-commercial limitation, and modification notes when copying or sharing.
Checkpoints
Stop and ask for user confirmation when:
- the task could be either systematic review, scoping review, narrative review, or bibliometric review;
- the target journal route changes the expected evidence standard;
- the corpus is too narrow for the claimed contribution;
- frontier radar results are being considered for formal systematic inclusion;
- health-effect language would imply causality from cross-sectional or ecological evidence;
- SAR, street-view, POI, mobile-phone, or medical data would change privacy, data access, or modality assumptions.
Formal Corpus vs Frontier Radar Handoff
Use this handoff rule whenever radar results and formal review evidence appear in the same task:
- Label each item as
formal-corpus,radar-candidate,background-method, orexcluded. - A
radar-candidatecan becomeformal-corpusonly after it passes the same database/search, inclusion, deduplication, and screening rules. - If it is too new for WoS/Scopus indexing, use it only in the future agenda or method outlook, not in corpus counts.
- Record the decision in a handoff table with: title, source, date, status, reason, and permitted manuscript use.
Failure Modes and Fallbacks
| Failure | Required fallback |
|---|---|
| Database access unavailable | Produce a search protocol and ask the user to export records; do not invent counts |
| Non-OA PDFs missing | Mark as manual download needed; do not summarize unavailable full text as if read |
| Radar source changes quickly | Browse or ask for current links; report source dates |
| Too few sports-park papers | Broaden to parks, green/open space, active recreation infrastructure, and facility accessibility |
| Bibliometric maps are descriptive only | Add manual coding and policy/mechanism synthesis |
| Remote-sensing method has no exposure validity | Treat as technical background, not exposure evidence |
| Medical data linkage lacks individual location/time | Use area-level ecological framing and avoid individual causal claims |
| Citation match ambiguous | Ask for user confirmation or use DOI/title matching report |
Must Not Do
- Do not present bibliometric software output as the main scientific contribution.
- Do not equate accessibility, exposure, availability, quality, and actual use.
- Do not equate green exposure or park proximity with health benefit.
- Do not call a review systematic if search, screening, and exclusion records are incomplete.
- Do not use exact corpus-count language in a narrative review.
- Do not infer health causality from ecological or cross-sectional exposure associations.
- Do not include private PDFs, local absolute paths, API keys, or unpublished reviewer comments in reusable skill files.
- Do not copy external skill text wholesale into the parent workflow. If a licensed upstream skill is vendored as a separate subskill, keep it isolated, preserve attribution and license files, and route through the subskill entrypoint.
References
references/workflow_playbook.md: route-specific workflow teaching and templates.references/darwin_quality_gate.md: 95-point quality gate used before merging into the public skill set.references/darwin_ars_subskill_evaluation.md: Darwin 9-dimension evaluation, test summary, project value, and packaging risk controls for the ARS subskill.subskills/academic-research-suite/SKILL.md: vendored Codex-native Academic Research Suite router for general research, writing, review, citation, integrity, and pipeline tasks.