| name | structured-literature-review |
| description | Use when producing a publishable or shareable literature review - chained workflow from scope to written review with verification |
| kind | workflow |
| audience | anyone |
| ai-tools | any |
| complexity | chained |
| time | 1-3 days |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| source | bundled |
| composes | ["literature-scan","verifying-before-citing"] |
Structured Literature Review
What this does
Produces a publishable or shareable literature review by running a structured pipeline: scope → search → screen → extract → synthesize → write → verify. Each stage has an explicit handoff artifact and a quality gate.
When to use
- Writing a literature review for a paper, thesis, or report
- Producing a "state of the field" memo for stakeholders
- Building a foundation for a new research project
- Updating an existing review with new evidence
What you bring (Inputs)
- Research question (one sentence)
- Audience (academic / practitioner / executive)
- Time and depth budget
- Inclusion criteria you can articulate (date range, source types, languages)
What you get (Output)
A written review (1-20 pages depending on scope) with: scope, methods, themes, evidence map, gaps, and a verified bibliography.
How it works (Steps)
This is a chained workflow with 6 stages and explicit handoffs.
Stages
Stage 1: Scope (handoff: a one-page scope document)
- Research question
- Inclusion criteria (date range, study types, geography, languages)
- Exclusion criteria
- Audience and depth target
Gate: scope fits on one page; inclusion criteria are specific enough that two people would categorize the same source the same way.
Stage 2: Search (handoff: a list of candidate sources, 30-100)
Run literature-scan to identify the canonical sources. Then expand:
- Forward citations from those canonical sources
- Backward citations from recent reviews
- Database searches with explicit queries (record the queries)
Save: source list with metadata (title, author, year, venue, where you found it).
Gate: at least 30 candidates; search queries are recorded.
Stage 3: Screen (handoff: included sources list, 10-40)
Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria from Stage 1 to each candidate. Record reason for each exclusion.
Gate: included list is non-empty and the exclusion reasons are concrete.
Stage 4: Extract (handoff: a structured table)
For each included source, extract: research question, method, sample, key findings, limitations, your one-line summary, and the theme(s) it speaks to.
Gate: every included source has every column filled. Empty cells = re-read the source.
Stage 5: Synthesize (handoff: a themes document)
Cluster sources into 3-7 themes. For each theme: what is the consensus, what is contested, what's the strongest evidence on each side, what gaps remain.
Gate: every theme is supported by multiple sources; consensus and contestation are both named.
Stage 6: Write (handoff: the final review)
Standard structure (adjust for venue):
- Introduction and scope
- Methods (search strategy, inclusion criteria, screening process)
- Themes (one section per theme; consensus → contestation → evidence)
- Gaps and future work
- Bibliography
Stage 7: Verify (NON-SKIPPABLE)
Run verifying-before-citing on every cited claim. Open the primary source for each. Fix or hedge or cut.
Gate: every citation has been verified or explicitly hedged.
Checkpoints
- After each stage's gate above. If a gate fails, loop back.
Loop-back conditions
- Stage 2 returns < 30 candidates: scope too narrow or wrong terminology — return to Stage 1
- Stage 3 leaves < 10 included: criteria too strict — return to Stage 1
- Stage 5 finds < 3 themes: under-extracted — return to Stage 4
- Stage 7 finds repeated misattributions: do not publish until fully cleaned
Quality bar
- Search queries are recorded and reproducible
- Every included source appears in at least one theme
- Every theme is supported by 2+ sources
- Every citation in the final draft has been opened and verified
- The review is something you'd be willing to defend in front of the cited authors
Variations
- Quick review (1 day): cap at 15 included sources; 3 themes
- Deep review (multi-week): include grey literature, expert interviews, and a methodology section
- Living review: re-run the search quarterly; mark what's new
Example
Input: Research question — "What does the evidence say about the effectiveness of remote work on team productivity, 2020-2025?"
Output: a 12-page review covering 28 sources organized into 4 themes (individual productivity, team coordination cost, manager experience, equity effects), with consensus and contestation in each, and a verified bibliography.
