# Autoconference:survey > Systematic multi-database literature survey. 3 researchers cover non-overlapping sources (databases, time periods, or methodologies) with citation-chain knowledge transfer. TRIGGER when: user wants a literature survey, systematic review, paper survey, wants to cover multiple databases or time periods. DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants to optimize a metric (use autoconference) or read a single paper (use scientific-reading). - Skill: `wjgoarxiv/autoconference-survey` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add wjgoarxiv/autoconference-survey` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/wjgoarxiv/autoconference-survey/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: wjgoarxiv (https://skillmd.com/u/wjgoarxiv) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/wjgoarxiv/autoconference-survey --- # autoconference:survey — Systematic Literature Survey *Run a multi-researcher literature survey where each researcher covers non-overlapping sources, then synthesizes findings via citation-chain knowledge transfer.* --- ## Survey Persistence Directive **The Session Chair is relentless.** Once the survey begins: 1. **NEVER STOP** a round prematurely. Each round runs all 4 phases to completion. 2. **NEVER ASK** "should I continue to the next round?" Advance automatically. 3. **Use the full budget.** If `max_rounds` is 2, run 2 complete rounds. 4. **The survey runs until one of these conditions is met:** - All taxonomy categories have >= minimum papers (coverage target met) - `max_rounds` exhausted (budget spent — this is normal, not failure) - The user manually interrupts 5. **If none of these conditions are true, begin the next round immediately.** --- ## Pre-Survey Setup (Mandatory) Before launching any survey, the Session Chair MUST ask the user these questions. Do NOT assume defaults — present options and wait for the user's answers. ### Question 1: Survey Topic / Research Question Ask: "What is the topic or research question for this literature survey?" Accept a free-form description. This becomes the lens for all searches and the basis for auto-generating taxonomy categories. ### Question 2: Partitioning Strategy Ask: "How should researchers divide their search coverage?" Present options: - **By database** (recommended for broad coverage): - Researcher A → PubMed / bioRxiv - Researcher B → arXiv / Semantic Scholar - Researcher C → Google Scholar / ACM Digital Library - **By time period** (recommended for tracking evolution of a field): - Researcher A → 2020–2022 - Researcher B → 2023–2024 - Researcher C → 2025–present - **By methodology** (recommended for contrasting research designs): - Researcher A → RCTs / experimental studies - Researcher B → Observational studies / surveys - Researcher C → Reviews / meta-analyses - **Custom**: User defines their own partitioning scheme (e.g., by language, geography, or application domain) Record the confirmed partitioning before proceeding. ### Question 3: Minimum Papers per Researcher Ask: "What is the minimum number of papers each researcher should find per taxonomy category? (Default: 5)" If the user accepts the default, use 5. Record this as `min_papers`. ### Question 4: Taxonomy Categories Ask: "What categories should papers be organized into? You can provide a list, or I can auto-generate categories from your research topic." - If the user provides categories: use them exactly. - If the user asks for auto-generation: generate 5–8 categories that carve up the topic space without overlap. Present the generated categories for confirmation before proceeding. Record the confirmed taxonomy as a numbered list. ### Question 5: Max Rounds Ask: "How many survey rounds should be run? (Default: 2 — surveys usually need fewer rounds than optimization loops)" If the user accepts the default, set `max_rounds = 2`. Record this value. --- ## Session Chair Responsibilities The Session Chair (you, the orchestrating agent) owns the survey lifecycle: 1. Conducts pre-survey setup (above) 2. Launches parallel researcher agents each round 3. Collects and analyzes results at each poster session 4. Tracks coverage metrics across taxonomy categories 5. Assigns gap-filling tasks for subsequent rounds 6. Produces the final `survey-report.md` --- ## Round Structure Each round consists of 4 phases executed in sequence. Do not skip phases. --- ### Phase 1: Independent Search (Parallel) Spawn 3 researcher agents in parallel. Each agent receives: - The research topic / research question - Their specific source partition assignment - The full taxonomy (list of categories) - The minimum papers target (`min_papers`) - Any citation leads from previous rounds (empty on Round 1) Each researcher MUST: 1. **Search their assigned sources** using the research topic. Use `WebSearch` and `WebFetch` to find papers. Try multiple search queries — not just the exact topic phrase. Use synonyms, sub-topics, and related terms to maximize coverage. 2. **For each paper found**, extract and record: - Title - Authors (first author + et al. if > 3) - Year of publication - Venue / journal / preprint server - Abstract summary (2–3 sentences in the researcher's own words) - Key findings (bullet list, max 5 points) - Methodology used - Which taxonomy category this paper belongs to (assign to exactly one) - Papers this work cites that seem highly relevant (citation leads) - Papers that cite this work, if discoverable 3. **Organize findings into the taxonomy.** Produce a table or structured list grouped by category. 4. **Self-assess coverage** using a qualitative 1–10 score per category: - 1–3: Very sparse (< 2 papers found) - 4–6: Partial (2–4 papers found) - 7–9: Good (5–7 papers found) - 10: Comprehensive (8+ papers, confident no major gaps) 5. **Log results** to `researcher_{ID}_results.tsv` in the conference working directory. Format: ``` category\ttitle\tauthors\tyear\tvenue\tsummary\tkey_findings\tcoverage_score ``` 6. **Report citation leads** — a list of papers encountered in references or related work sections that the researcher could not access from their assigned sources but may be findable by other researchers. --- ### Phase 2: Citation Chain Poster Session The Session Chair collects all researcher outputs and runs the poster session analysis: **2a. Aggregate results** Build a unified table: for each taxonomy category, list all papers found across all researchers, with researcher ID noted. **2b. Citation overlap analysis** Identify papers that appear in multiple researchers' results (cited by multiple researchers or independently discovered). These high-overlap papers are likely foundational — flag them as **anchor papers**. **2c. Coverage gap analysis** For each taxonomy category: - Count total papers found - Flag categories where count < `min_papers` as **coverage gaps** - Record which researcher(s) have coverage in each category **2d. Citation chain knowledge transfer** This is the key differentiator from independent search. The Session Chair synthesizes citation leads across researcher boundaries: - "Researcher A found paper X (in PubMed) which cites paper Y — Researcher B should search for paper Y in arXiv/Semantic Scholar" - "Researcher C's meta-analysis references a 2021 RCT — Researcher A should search for it in their time period" - "Category Z has no coverage from Researcher B's database — Researcher B should try alternative search terms: [suggest 3 terms]" Produce a **Citation Lead Dossier** listing: - For each gap category: 2–3 specific papers to chase or search queries to try - For each citation lead: which researcher should pursue it in the next round and why **2e. Print summary to terminal:** ``` === POSTER SESSION: ROUND {N} === Papers found this round: {total} Anchor papers (multi-researcher): {count} Coverage gaps: {list of categories below min_papers} Citation leads generated: {count} Coverage metric: {categories_at_or_above_min} / {total_categories} ``` --- ### Phase 3: Peer Review Spawn a Reviewer agent (use highest available model for rigor) to review the accumulated findings: The Reviewer checks: 1. **Accuracy of summaries** — spot-check 3–5 papers by fetching their abstracts directly. Do the researcher summaries accurately reflect the paper content? Flag any misrepresentation. 2. **Categorization correctness** — are papers assigned to the right taxonomy category? Flag any papers that seem miscategorized. 3. **Obvious missing papers** — given the research topic and taxonomy, are there well-known papers or research groups that should appear but don't? List up to 5 specific suggestions. 4. **Balance across categories** — is coverage suspiciously skewed? (e.g., one category has 20 papers while others have 0) If so, flag it. 5. **Quality of citation leads** — are the citation lead dossier suggestions actionable and relevant? The Reviewer produces a short `peer-review-round-{N}.md` with: - Accuracy issues found (with paper titles) - Miscategorization flags - Missing paper suggestions - Balance observations - Citation lead quality assessment --- ### Phase 4: Coverage Transfer The Session Chair processes the peer review and prepares for the next round: 1. **Update the shared citation graph** — merge all newly discovered papers and citation relationships into a running graph (text format): ``` [Paper A] --cites--> [Paper B] [Paper C] --cites--> [Paper A] ``` 2. **Incorporate peer review flags** — if accuracy issues were found, add a correction task for the next round. If miscategorizations were found, move papers to correct categories now. 3. **Assign gap-filling tasks** — based on the Citation Lead Dossier and peer review missing-paper suggestions, assign specific search tasks to each researcher for the next round: ``` Researcher A (next round): Chase citation lead [Paper Y]; try search query "[alternative term]" in PubMed Researcher B (next round): Investigate Category Z gap; search for [specific suggested papers] Researcher C (next round): Verify claim in [Paper X]; search for RCT cited in [meta-analysis title] ``` 4. **Compute convergence metric:** ``` coverage_metric = (categories with >= min_papers) / total_categories ``` If `coverage_metric == 1.0`, the coverage target is met. Note this — the survey may conclude after this round completes. 5. **Print status:** ``` === ROUND {N} COMPLETE === Coverage metric: {coverage_metric:.2f} ({categories_at_min}/{total}) Target met: YES / NO Budget remaining: {max_rounds - N} rounds Next round: AUTO-STARTING ``` If target met AND budget exhausted, or if target met early: proceed to Final Output. If budget remains and target not met: begin Round N+1 immediately with the gap-filling assignments. --- ## Convergence Conditions Stop the survey when ANY of the following is true: 1. `coverage_metric == 1.0` (all categories have >= `min_papers` papers) — **coverage target met** 2. `N == max_rounds` — **budget exhausted** (this is a normal, expected stopping point) 3. User interrupts On stopping, proceed immediately to Final Output. --- ## Final Output: survey-report.md Write `survey-report.md` to the conference working directory. The report must contain all of the following sections: --- ### Section 1: Executive Summary 3–5 paragraphs covering: - The research question this survey addressed - The partitioning strategy used and why - The total number of papers found and across how many rounds - The 3–5 most important findings across all researchers - The most significant gaps that remain ### Section 2: Taxonomy Table A complete table with one row per paper, organized by category. Columns: | Category | Title | Authors | Year | Venue | Key Findings | Methodology | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| Sort within each category by year (descending). ### Section 3: Citation Graph Text-format citation graph showing the key citation chains discovered across researchers. Format: ``` [CATEGORY: {name}] [Paper A (Year)] --cites--> [Paper B (Year)] --cites--> [Paper C (Year)] [Paper D (Year)] --cites--> [Paper A (Year)] [CROSS-CATEGORY LINKS] [Paper E (Category 1)] --cites--> [Paper F (Category 3)] ``` List anchor papers (cited by 2+ researchers or discovered via multiple chains) with a note: `(ANCHOR)`. ### Section 4: Coverage Heatmap A text-format table showing coverage per category per researcher: | Category | Researcher A | Researcher B | Researcher C | Total | |---|---|---|---|---| | Category 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 12 | | Category 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 9 | | ... | | | | | Color coding (in markdown bold/italics): - **Bold**: >= `min_papers` (coverage target met) - *Italic*: < `min_papers` (gap) - Empty cell: 0 papers ### Section 5: Gaps and Recommendations A structured list of: 1. **Uncovered categories** (if any remain below `min_papers`) — with specific search suggestions 2. **Citation leads not yet chased** — papers identified in citation chains but not yet retrieved 3. **Peer review flags** — accuracy issues or miscategorizations flagged across rounds 4. **Recommended next steps** — if the user wants to deepen coverage, what should they do next? ### Section 6: Methodology Note Brief description of the survey protocol used: - Partitioning strategy - Rounds run - Total papers considered - Peer review process used --- ## Chaining This skill produces a literature foundation that feeds naturally into other skills: - **`autoconference:survey` → `autoconference`**: Use the survey's taxonomy and anchor papers as the `background` section of a `conference.md` to bootstrap an optimization conference with an established literature base. - **`autoconference:survey` → `autoconference:ship`**: Pass `survey-report.md` to the ship skill to format the survey findings as a publication-ready systematic review. When chaining, note which papers are anchor papers — these are the highest-priority references to include in the downstream conference or publication.