Literature Review Builder

Literature Review Skill

by mohitagw15856 · MIT license · ★ 1,395 on GitHub · updated Sep 23

Structure and write a literature review for any research topic. Use when asked to write a literature review, systematic review summary, narrative review, or research background section.

---
name: literature-review
description: "Structure and write a literature review for any research topic. Use when asked to write a literature review, systematic review summary, narrative review, or research background section. Produces a structured review with thematic organisation, critical analysis, and gap identification."
---

# Literature Review Skill

Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.

## Required Inputs
- **Topic or research question**
- **Type of review** (narrative / systematic / scoping / integrative / background section)
- **Sources provided** (paste references, abstracts, or key findings)
- **Word count target**
- **Audience** (academic journal / thesis / grant proposal / policy brief)
- **Time period to cover**

## Output Structure

Overview

Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.

Manual install (npx, ZIP)

Claude Codenpx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill literature-review -g -a claude-code

Claude Code (manual)

mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && curl -sL https://codeload.github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tar.gz/f6ca79348c55 \
  | tar -xz -C ~/.claude/skills --strip-components=2 pm-claude-skills-f6ca79348c55/skills/literature-review

Windows (PowerShell)

New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force "$HOME\.claude\skills" | Out-Null; Invoke-WebRequest "https://m.agentalley.io/zip/58b43997da57ce227e38/literature-review.zip" -OutFile "$env:TEMP\literature-review.zip"; Expand-Archive "$env:TEMP\literature-review.zip" -DestinationPath "$HOME\.claude\skills" -Force

Claude.ai / desktopDownload the ZIP and upload it under Settings → Capabilities → Skills.

Codex, Cursor, other agentsPoint them at SKILL.md. The other files are plain text.

Connects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp

Files included

SKILL.md3.7 KB

Read the files here

mohitagw15856/f6ca7931 file

SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md

Show the full text80 lines

literature-review-2/SKILL.md80 lines · 3.7 KB

PreviewCode

Outline

RawView on GitHub

Literature Review Skill

Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.

Required Inputs

Topic or research question
Type of review (narrative / systematic / scoping / integrative / background section)
Sources provided (paste references, abstracts, or key findings)
Word count target
Audience (academic journal / thesis / grant proposal / policy brief)
Time period to cover

Output Structure

1. Search Strategy Summary (for systematic/scoping reviews)

Databases: [PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, etc.] Search terms: [Key terms and Boolean combinations] Inclusion criteria: Study types, population, date range, language Exclusion criteria: [List] Results: [n] identified → [n] after deduplication → [n] screened → [n] included

2. Literature Review Body

Organised thematically — not chronologically. Each theme = one section.

Structure per thematic section:

[Theme heading]

[Opening: state what this section covers and what evidence shows overall]

[Evidence synthesis: present what multiple studies found, compare and contrast. Do NOT summarise one paper then the next — synthesise across them: "Three studies found X (Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020; Lee, 2021), while two found Y, with the difference attributable to..."]

[Critical analysis: note methodological strengths and weaknesses — sample sizes, study designs, generalisability, risk of bias]

[Closing: transition to next theme]

3. Synthesis Table (systematic/scoping reviews)

Author, year	Study design	Population	n	Key findings	Quality/Limitations

4. Gap Analysis

Well-established: [What literature consistently shows] Contested: [Areas where evidence is mixed and why] Missing: [Gaps the field needs to address] How your study addresses the gap: [If this is for a research proposal]

5. Conclusion Paragraph

[3-5 sentences. Current state of knowledge and what is needed next]

Critical Analysis Framework

For each paper: internal validity, external validity, bias types, effect size significance vs clinical significance, funding conflicts.

Quality Checks

Organised thematically (not as individual paper summaries)
Evidence synthesised across papers (not summarised one by one)
Critical analysis of methodology included for key studies
Gaps identified — what the field still needs
All claims cited

Anti-Patterns

Do not summarise papers one by one — evidence must be synthesised thematically across multiple studies, not presented as a sequence of abstracts
Do not omit methodological critique — a literature review that only reports findings without assessing study quality is not a critical review
Do not organise by chronology when thematic organisation is possible — chronological reviews bury the conceptual structure of the field
Do not present contested findings as settled consensus — where evidence is mixed, name both sides and why the evidence diverges
Do not skip the gap analysis — identifying what the field still needs is a core deliverable, not an optional addition

Example Trigger Phrases

"Write a literature review on [topic]"
"Synthesise the evidence on [topic] from these papers: [paste]"
"Write the background section for my research proposal on [topic]"

1	---
2	name: literature-review
3	description: "Structure and write a literature review for any research topic. Use when asked to write a literature review, systematic review summary, narrative review, or research background section. Produces a structured review with thematic organisation, critical analysis, and gap identification."
4	---
5
6	# Literature Review Skill
7
8	Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.
9
10	## Required Inputs
11	- Topic or research question
12	- Type of review (narrative / systematic / scoping / integrative / background section)
13	- Sources provided (paste references, abstracts, or key findings)
14	- Word count target
15	- Audience (academic journal / thesis / grant proposal / policy brief)
16	- Time period to cover
17
18	## Output Structure
19
20	### 1. Search Strategy Summary (for systematic/scoping reviews)
21	Databases: [PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, etc.]
22	Search terms: [Key terms and Boolean combinations]
23	Inclusion criteria: Study types, population, date range, language
24	Exclusion criteria: [List]
25	Results: [n] identified → [n] after deduplication → [n] screened → [n] included
26
27	### 2. Literature Review Body
28
29	Organised thematically — not chronologically. Each theme = one section.
30
31	Structure per thematic section:
32
33	[Theme heading]
34
35	[Opening: state what this section covers and what evidence shows overall]
36
37	[Evidence synthesis: present what multiple studies found, compare and contrast. Do NOT summarise one paper then the next — synthesise across them: "Three studies found X (Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020; Lee, 2021), while two found Y, with the difference attributable to..."]
38
39	[Critical analysis: note methodological strengths and weaknesses — sample sizes, study designs, generalisability, risk of bias]
40
41	[Closing: transition to next theme]
42
43	### 3. Synthesis Table (systematic/scoping reviews)
44
45	\| Author, year \| Study design \| Population \| n \| Key findings \| Quality/Limitations \|
46	\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|
47
48	### 4. Gap Analysis
49
50	Well-established: [What literature consistently shows]
51	Contested: [Areas where evidence is mixed and why]
52	Missing: [Gaps the field needs to address]
53	How your study addresses the gap: [If this is for a research proposal]
54
55	### 5. Conclusion Paragraph
56	[3-5 sentences. Current state of knowledge and what is needed next]
57
58	## Critical Analysis Framework
59	For each paper: internal validity, external validity, bias types, effect size significance vs clinical significance, funding conflicts.
60
61	## Quality Checks
62	- [ ] Organised thematically (not as individual paper summaries)
63	- [ ] Evidence synthesised across papers (not summarised one by one)
64	- [ ] Critical analysis of methodology included for key studies
65	- [ ] Gaps identified — what the field still needs
66	- [ ] All claims cited
67
68	## Anti-Patterns
69
70	- [ ] Do not summarise papers one by one — evidence must be synthesised thematically across multiple studies, not presented as a sequence of abstracts
71	- [ ] Do not omit methodological critique — a literature review that only reports findings without assessing study quality is not a critical review
72	- [ ] Do not organise by chronology when thematic organisation is possible — chronological reviews bury the conceptual structure of the field
73	- [ ] Do not present contested findings as settled consensus — where evidence is mixed, name both sides and why the evidence diverges
74	- [ ] Do not skip the gap analysis — identifying what the field still needs is a core deliverable, not an optional addition
75
76	## Example Trigger Phrases
77	- "Write a literature review on [topic]"
78	- "Synthesise the evidence on [topic] from these papers: [paste]"
79	- "Write the background section for my research proposal on [topic]"
80