| name | literature_consensus_map |
| description | Summarize the current literature consensus, disagreements, and evidence strength for a biological question. |
| category | bio/literature |
| version | 1 |
| requires_tools | ["search_knowledge_base","evidence_retrieval","evidence_review","python_repl"] |
| requires_network | true |
| user_invocable | true |
| tags | ["literature","consensus","controversy","evidence-synthesis"] |
| aliases | ["consensus_builder","literature_synthesis"] |
| species | any |
| modality | literature |
| stage | interpretation |
| stability | stable |
| safety_level | medium |
Literature Consensus Map
Purpose
Build a concise map of what the literature broadly agrees on, where disagreement remains, and how strong the evidence appears to be.
When to use
Use this skill when the user asks for the current state of the field on a question, such as whether a pathway drives a phenotype or whether a target is well supported.
Required inputs
- question: the biological claim, mechanism, or target of interest
- context (optional): species, tissue, disease, or experimental system
Steps
- Restate the biological question and the key scope assumptions such as species, tissue, disease, and perturbation context.
- Search
knowledge/ with search_knowledge_base for local notes, prior evidence syntheses, or project-specific framing.
- Use
evidence_retrieval to gather a bounded set of relevant PubMed-backed evidence cards for the question.
- Use
evidence_review to separate supported conclusions, unresolved conflicts, and explicit unsupported claims when the evidence is thin.
- Use
python_repl if helpful to organize the included studies into a small comparison table.
- Keep citations attached to claims and do not overstate consensus when the literature is sparse or context-dependent.
Output format
- Biological context or assumptions: species, system, disease, and scope used to judge consensus.
- Evidence or source basis: which
search_knowledge_base, evidence_retrieval, and evidence_review artifacts supported the summary.
- Consensus map: strong recurring claims, context-dependent findings, and disagreement or uncertainty.
- Caveats or ambiguity: weak evidence base, unresolved conflicts, or questions that remain unsupported.
- Recommended next step: what evidence gap to resolve, experiment to prioritize, or narrower follow-up question to ask.
Failure modes
- Too broad a question: ask the user to narrow the scope.
- Sparse literature: say the consensus is weak or preliminary.
- Mixed systems: separate conclusions by species or model rather than collapsing them.
Examples
- "What is the literature consensus on TOX in T-cell exhaustion?"
- "Summarize the evidence for interferon signaling in melanoma resistance."
