Answer literature-review requests with a concise, source-grounded narrative by default. Escalate to PRISMA screening, evidence tables, figures, files, or PDFs only when the user explicitly asks for a systematic, scoping, or publication-formatted review.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Answer literature-review requests with a concise, source-grounded narrative by default. Escalate to PRISMA screening, evidence tables, figures, files, or PDFs only when the user explicitly asks for a systematic, scoping, or publication-formatted review.
category
writing
allowed-tools
["Read","Write","Edit","Bash"]
Literature Review
Overview
Give the user a clear, conversational synthesis of the relevant literature. Verify citations, explain the field's consensus and disagreements, and scale the method and deliverables to the request.
This skill integrates with multiple scientific skills for database access (gget, bioservices, datacommons-client) and provides specialized tools for citation verification, result aggregation, and document generation.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
Asking for an ordinary narrative literature review or research synthesis
Conducting a systematic literature review for research or publication
Synthesizing current knowledge on a specific topic across multiple sources
Performing meta-analysis or scoping reviews
Writing the literature review section of a research paper or thesis
Investigating the state of the art in a research domain
Identifying research gaps and future directions
Requiring verified citations and professional formatting
Default: narrative review
Unless the user explicitly asks for a systematic/scoping review, meta-analysis, paper, report, PDF, or figure:
Answer in the conversation; do not create files.
Use a focused search that is broad enough to support the answer, not a fixed database or paper quota.
Synthesize by idea and evidence, not by narrating the workflow.
Include links or citations for the sources that materially support the answer.
Do not create PRISMA diagrams, screening logs, evidence matrices, schematics, or BibTeX appendices.
Do not generate images. A figure is an optional deliverable, never a completion requirement.
Stop when the question is answered. Do not turn a normal review into a publication pipeline.
Explicit systematic-review mode
Use the structured workflow below only when the user clearly requests systematic, scoping, meta-analytic, comprehensive publication-grade, or PRISMA-style work. Confirm material scope or spend only when it is genuinely ambiguous.
Core Workflow
Explicit systematic reviews follow a structured, multi-phase workflow:
Phase 1: Planning and Scoping
Define Research Question: Use PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for clinical/biomedical reviews
Example: "What is the efficacy of CRISPR-Cas9 (I) for treating sickle cell disease (P) compared to standard care (C)?"
Establish Scope and Objectives:
Define clear, specific research questions
Determine review type (narrative, systematic, scoping, meta-analysis)
Set boundaries (time period, geographic scope, study types)
Develop Search Strategy:
Identify 2-4 main concepts from research question
List synonyms, abbreviations, and related terms for each concept
Plan Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine terms
Select minimum 3 complementary databases
Set Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria:
Date range (e.g., last 10 years: 2015-2024)
Language (typically English, or specify multilingual)
Organize Results section by themes or research questions
Synthesize findings across multiple studies within each theme
Compare and contrast different approaches and results
Identify consensus areas and points of controversy
Highlight the strongest evidence
Example structure:
#### 3.3.1 Theme: CRISPR Delivery Methods
Multiple delivery approaches have been investigated for therapeutic
gene editing. Viral vectors (AAV) were used in 15 studies^1-15^ and
showed high transduction efficiency (65-85%) but raised immunogenicity
concerns^3,7,12^. In contrast, lipid nanoparticles demonstrated lower
efficiency (40-60%) but improved safety profiles^16-23^.
Critical Analysis:
Evaluate methodological strengths and limitations across studies
Assess quality and consistency of evidence
Identify knowledge gaps and methodological gaps
Note areas requiring future research
Write Discussion:
Interpret findings in broader context
Discuss clinical, practical, or research implications
Acknowledge limitations of the review itself
Compare with previous reviews if applicable
Propose specific future research directions
Phase 6: Citation Verification
CRITICAL: All citations must be verified for accuracy before final submission.
# Search PubMed
gget search pubmed "CRISPR gene editing" -l 100
# Search with filters# Use PubMed Advanced Search Builder to construct complex queries# Then execute via gget or direct Entrez API
