--- name: lit-review-writer description: "Interactive workflow for systematic literature review and synthesis writing. Use when the user wants to survey a research topic, write a literature review, conduct a systematic review, or summarize the state of a field. Guides through 5 phases with 4 user-confirmation checkpoints: parameter collection, literature search (3 rounds), outline via temporal-comparative analysis, section-by-section writing, Word export. Output is Markdown draft confirmed by user then exported as .docx. No LaTeX. Triggered by phrases like 'write a literature review on', 'survey the literature on', 'do a systematic review of', 'summarize the field of'." allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash WebSearch WebFetch --- # Literature Review Writer Interactive, checkpoint-driven workflow for systematic literature review and synthesis. Never advances to the next phase without explicit user confirmation. **Output path**: Markdown draft → user confirms → Word document (.docx) in current working directory. **No LaTeX**: all formatting in standard Word styles. --- ## Global Rules - One phase at a time. Complete each phase fully before showing the checkpoint. - At every checkpoint, explicitly ask: "Does this look right? Please confirm to proceed, or tell me what to change." - If a search returns fewer results than requested, report the actual count and ask whether to proceed or broaden the search. - All speculation or unverifiable claims in the written text must be flagged with "(unverified)" or "likely" — never stated as fact. --- ## Phase 0 — Parameter Collection Ask the following one at a time (wait for each answer before asking the next): 1. "What is the research topic you want me to review? The more specific, the better." 2. "Which research domain does this fall under? (a) Life sciences / medicine (b) Computer science / AI (c) Earth & environmental sciences (d) Social sciences / humanities (e) Other — please describe" 3. "What time range should I focus on? For example: 'last 5 years', '2015–2024', or 'all time'." 4. "How many references are you targeting? I suggest 20–60 for a focused review; more for a comprehensive one." 5. "Which citation format? (a) APA (b) Nature / Vancouver (numbered) (c) Chicago author-date" 6. "Should I write in (a) English or (b) Chinese?" **Checkpoint 1**: Display a summary table of all six parameters: ``` Topic: [answer] Domain: [answer] Time range: [answer] Target refs: [answer] Citation style: [answer] Language: [answer] ``` Say: "These are the parameters I'll use. Does everything look right? Reply 'yes' to proceed, or tell me what to change." Do not start Phase 1 until the user confirms. --- ## Phase 1 — Literature Search Execute three rounds of search. Invoke the `paper-lookup` skill and the `research-lookup` skill for database searches; use `WebSearch` and `WebFetch` for supplemental web searches. ### Round 1 — Core literature Search PubMed, arXiv, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar using the main topic keywords. Aim for the top papers by relevance and citation count within the specified time range. ### Round 2 — Snowballing From the 5 highest-cited papers found in Round 1, extract their reference lists. Add any papers that are (a) within the time range and (b) not already in the list. ### Round 3 — Recent developments Restrict search to the last 1–2 years only. Target preprints and newly published work not yet highly cited. Use arXiv and bioRxiv in addition to standard databases. ### Recording format For every paper collected, record: ``` | Title | First Author | Year | Source | DOI or URL | Relevance (1–5) | One-line summary | ``` Relevance scoring guide: - 5: Directly addresses the topic; must cite - 4: Closely related; highly relevant - 3: Tangentially relevant; useful context - 2: Weak connection; borderline - 1: Not relevant ### Auto-filtering - Score ≥ 3 → **Main list** - Score < 3 → **Pending list** (shown separately, user decides) **Checkpoint 2**: Display the main list as a markdown table, then the pending list beneath it. Say: "Here are the papers I found. The main list has [N] papers. The pending list has [M] papers with lower relevance scores — let me know if you want to include any of them. You can: - Remove any paper from the main list by number - Promote papers from the pending list - Ask me to do a supplemental search on a specific sub-topic - Reply 'proceed' when the list looks right" Do not start Phase 2 until the user confirms. --- ## Phase 2 — Outline Generation Generate the outline using the **Temporal-Comparative Analysis** (横纵分析法) framework below. The outline has a fixed skeleton with an adaptive main body. ### Temporal-Comparative Analysis Framework This framework structures the review around two analytical axes that are then synthesized: **Longitudinal axis (纵向 — development narrative)**: - Trace the research direction from its origins to the present - Cover: origin background, founding works, key paradigm shifts, decision logic at each turning point - Narrative style: cause-and-effect story, not a dry chronological list - Weave in key papers, authors, and institutions as characters in the narrative - For each major transition: explain *why* the field moved in that direction, what constraints existed, what alternatives were rejected **Synchronic axis (横向 — current landscape)**: - Snapshot of the field at the present moment - First, classify the competitive landscape: - Scenario A (no competing approaches): explain why — is the area too new, too niche, or too dominated by one paradigm? What indirect alternatives exist? - Scenario B (1–2 competing approaches): deep comparison of each - Scenario C (3+ competing approaches): select 3–5 most representative; briefly mention others - Comparison dimensions (adapt to the topic): - Technical approach / underlying methodology - Applicable scenarios and target problems - Strengths and clear limitations - Community adoption: citation patterns, which groups use which approach, known controversies - Niche position: does each approach fill a gap or compete head-on? **Convergence (横纵交汇)**: - Combine both axes into a new integrated judgment - This is NOT a summary of prior sections — it must offer new synthesis - Answer: Where does this field stand historically? What is the most likely site of the next paradigm shift? ### Outline Template ``` 1. Abstract 2. Introduction 2.1 Research background and significance 2.2 Scope and objectives of this review 2.3 Structure of this paper ── LONGITUDINAL AXIS ────────────────────────────────────────── 3. Origins and Foundations — What problem or need gave birth to this research direction? — Who were the founding contributors? What was the intellectual context? — [List reference numbers to cite here] 4. Evolution of the Field — Narrative of key paradigm shifts (not a list of dates) — For each major transition: what changed, why, what was abandoned — [List reference numbers to cite here] ── SYNCHRONIC AXIS ──────────────────────────────────────────── 5. Current Approaches and Comparative Landscape 5.1 [Approach / School A] — Technical approach, applicable scenarios, strengths, limitations — Community reception and adoption 5.2 [Approach / School B] (if Scenario B or C) 5.3 [Approach / School C] (if Scenario C) 5.4 Niche and ecosystem analysis [List reference numbers per subsection] ── CONVERGENCE ──────────────────────────────────────────────── 6. Challenges and Research Gaps — New integrated synthesis from both axes — Specific open problems with evidence [List reference numbers] 7. Future Directions — Grounded predictions based on longitudinal + synchronic analysis [List reference numbers] 8. Conclusion 9. References ``` ### Annotations per section For each section in the outline, add: - Reference numbers from the confirmed list that will be cited - A 1–2 sentence note on the core argument to be made ### Writing style constraints (enforced in Phase 3) - Longitudinal sections: narrative-driven prose, cause-effect structure, no bullet-point chronologies - Synchronic sections: core analysis in prose; tables permitted only as supplementary aids - Plain language: no consultant jargon ("empower", "synergy", "ecosystem play") - Every evaluative claim must be backed by a citation or labeled as the author's inference - Speculation must be explicitly flagged: "This suggests…", "It is possible that…", "(unverified)" **Checkpoint 3**: Display the full annotated outline. Say: "Here is the outline structured around the temporal-comparative framework. You can: - Reorder or rename sections - Merge or split sections - Adjust which references go where - Change the argument direction for any section - Reply 'proceed' when the outline looks right" Do not start Phase 3 until the user confirms. --- ## Phase 3 — Full Text Writing (Markdown) Write section by section. For each section, follow this sequence: ``` ① State the core argument of this section in 2–3 sentences → Ask: "Is this the right direction for this section?" → Wait for confirmation before writing the full text → If the user says no or proposes a different direction: ask them to state the intended direction, revise the 2–3 sentence summary accordingly, and ask for confirmation again before writing ② Write full paragraphs (no bullet lists in body text) ③ Embed inline citations in the user-selected format APA example: (Smith & Jones, 2021) Vancouver: [1], [2] Chicago: (Smith 2021) ④ After writing the section, ask: "Section complete. Shall I: (a) continue to the next section, (b) revise this section, or (c) add more references here?" ``` ### Special handling: Section 6 (Convergence) This section must not summarize Sections 3–5. It must: - Synthesize the longitudinal narrative with the synchronic landscape - Deliver a judgment on where the field currently stands in its historical arc - Identify the most likely source of the next paradigm shift, with evidence - Be as opinionated as the evidence allows; label inferences clearly ### Reference shortfall rule If any section has fewer than 2 supporting references from the confirmed list, pause and say: "This section has limited citation support. I can (a) proceed with a note that more references are needed, (b) do a targeted search for more papers on [specific sub-topic], or (c) merge this section into an adjacent one." **Checkpoint 4**: After all sections are written, display the complete Markdown document. Say: "Here is the full draft. You can: - Request edits to any section (quote the section heading) - Ask me to expand or compress any section - Add or remove references - Reply 'export' when ready to generate the Word document" Do not start Phase 4 until the user says 'export' or equivalent confirmation. --- ## Phase 4 — Export to Word (.docx) Invoke the `docx` skill to convert the confirmed Markdown to a formatted Word document. If the `docx` skill is unavailable or the export fails, inform the user: "The Word export encountered an issue. Your complete Markdown draft is available in this conversation — you can copy it to any Markdown editor or use an online Markdown-to-Word converter (e.g., Pandoc, Word's built-in import)." Document structure: - Title page: review title, date, citation format used - Auto-generated table of contents - Body: heading hierarchy (H1 for numbered sections, H2 for subsections), 12pt body text, 1.5 line spacing - References section: formatted per user-selected citation style, numbered or author-year Output filename: `[topic-slug]_literature_review_[YYYY-MM-DD].docx` where `topic-slug` is a short, filesystem-safe version of the topic (lowercase, hyphens instead of spaces, max 30 chars) Save to: current working directory After export, say: "Your literature review has been saved as `[filename].docx` in the current directory. The Markdown draft is also available in this conversation if you need to make further edits." ---