bibliographic-researcher

name	bibliographic-researcher
description	Build rigorous, well-scoped bibliographies and annotated source maps for a research question, topic area, or evidence review. Use when the job is to find, assess, organize, and cite relevant literature or source material. Do not use for full literature synthesis, legal advice, or generic web search with no citation discipline.

Bibliographic Researcher

Build source lists people can trust.

This skill is for turning a topic, question, or evidence need into a structured bibliography with enough metadata, rationale, and annotation that someone else can continue the work without redoing discovery from scratch.

Scope

Use this skill for:

• topic bibliographies and reading lists
• annotated bibliographies
• source landscape mapping by subtopic, method, or period
• preliminary evidence gathering for a project or review
• citation normalization and de-duplication
• source credibility screening and inclusion rationale
• organization of sources into themes, debates, or evidence buckets

Do not use this skill for

Do not use this skill for:

• writing a full literature review or argumentative synthesis as the main task
• making legal, medical, or investment recommendations from sources
• exhaustive archival research that requires physical access or proprietary databases you cannot verify
• generic search summaries with no citation structure
• citation fabrication, placeholder references, or unverifiable claims

Inputs to gather

Before compiling the bibliography, identify:

• the research question or decision the bibliography should support
• subject boundaries and exclusions
• preferred source types such as peer-reviewed papers, books, standards, reports, or primary documents
• time range, geography, language, and disciplinary scope
• citation style if one is required
• whether annotations should summarize, evaluate, or both
• expected depth: starter list, working bibliography, or near-exhaustive scan
• any must-include authors, journals, institutions, or seed references

If scope is fuzzy, narrow it first. A smaller credible bibliography beats a bloated list of loosely related sources.

Output expectations

Return outputs such as:

• annotated bibliography
• structured reading list by theme
• source matrix with author, year, method, and relevance notes
• bibliography plus inclusion and exclusion criteria
• bibliography gap analysis
• citation-cleanup and de-duplication pass

Working method

1. Define the question and scope precisely

State what the bibliography is for. Examples:

• orient a team to a topic
• support a proposal or memo
• prepare for a literature review
• identify the strongest evidence on a specific claim

Good bibliographies are shaped by use, not by keyword sprawl.

2. Start from trustworthy seed sources

Prefer high-signal entry points such as:

• landmark papers or books
• systematic reviews and meta-analyses when relevant
• major journals, conferences, and scholarly publishers
• standards bodies, official agencies, and respected think tanks
• reference lists from authoritative works

Use seed sources to expand laterally, not to anchor everything on the first search result page.

3. Record complete citation metadata early

Capture enough detail to verify and reuse each source:

• author or organization
• title
• publication venue
• year
• DOI, URL, ISBN, or stable identifier when available
• source type
• access date for unstable web sources when relevant

Do not leave citation cleanup for the end if it can be avoided.

4. Annotate for usefulness, not just summary

A useful annotation usually covers:

• what the source is about
• what type of evidence it provides
• why it matters to the question
• major limitations, bias risks, or scope constraints

If a source is weak but widely cited, say so directly.

5. Organize sources into a navigable structure

Group sources by something meaningful, such as:

• theme or debate
• methodology
• chronology
• geography or population
• foundational versus recent work
• primary versus secondary material

The reader should be able to see the landscape, not just the pile.

6. Be explicit about coverage limits and gaps

State what was not covered:

• databases or indexes not searched
• languages excluded
• paywalled or inaccessible material
• time constraints
• underrepresented perspectives or evidence gaps

A transparent incomplete bibliography is better than a falsely complete one.

Heuristics

Prefer:

• authoritative and citable sources over convenience links
• explicit inclusion logic over vague "relevance"
• concise annotations with evaluative value
• thematic organization that supports downstream work
• de-duplicated, normalized citations

Avoid:

• invented references or incomplete citations presented as final
• mixing scholarly, journalistic, and promotional sources without labeling them
• giant undifferentiated source dumps
• annotations that only restate titles
• overstating comprehensiveness when search coverage was limited

Review lenses

When evaluating bibliographic work, check:

• Is the scope clear and appropriately bounded?
• Are citations complete enough to verify?
• Are source types and credibility levels obvious?
• Do annotations explain relevance and limitations?
• Is the bibliography organized for actual use?
• Are coverage gaps and exclusions stated honestly?

Adjacent skill boundaries

• research-analyst: synthesizes findings into conclusions and recommendations
• literature-reviewer: produces a fuller evidence synthesis and narrative review
• legal-researcher: handles legal authorities and jurisdiction-specific research
• academic-researcher: broader scholarly research design and interpretation
• knowledge-manager: organizes durable institutional knowledge after research is done

Quality bar

A strong result should:

• answer a specific bibliographic need
• contain verifiable citations with consistent formatting
• help a reader understand why each source matters
• separate strong sources from weak or peripheral ones
• make the next stage of research faster, not harder

References to use

Use prompt.md for response structure and stance. Use examples/README.md for output shapes. Use guides/qa-checklist.md before finalizing. Use meta/skill.json for metadata and boundaries.