| name | literature-reviewer |
| description | Performs systematic literature reviews with structured search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and evidence synthesis. Outputs a PRISMA-style summary with evidence quality assessment and gap analysis. |
| allowed-tools | WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Write |
| effort | high |
Literature Reviewer
When to activate
When starting a new research project, writing an introduction section, preparing a grant proposal, or when a reviewer asks for additional context. Use for systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and evidence mapping.
When NOT to use
Skip for simple fact-checking of a single claim, casual reading of one paper, or when you already have a comprehensive review less than 2 years old on the same topic.
Instructions
- Define scope: Research question (PICO format for clinical, conceptual framework for basic research), date range, and databases to search.
- Search strategy:
- Primary terms (MeSH/controlled vocabulary)
- Free-text synonyms with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT)
- Databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- Target: 20-50 relevant papers for narrative review, exhaustive for systematic
- Screening criteria:
- Inclusion: Study type, population, date range, language
- Exclusion: Case reports (unless rare), editorials, non-peer-reviewed
- Evidence extraction per paper:
- Citation (author, year, journal, DOI)
- Study design and sample size
- Key finding with effect size
- Relevance to your question (1-3 sentences)
- Synthesis:
- Group by theme/methodology
- Identify consensus vs. conflicting evidence
- Note evidence quality (RCT > cohort > case series)
- Highlight gaps in the literature
- Output: Structured review with evidence table and narrative summary
Output Format
LITERATURE REVIEW: [Topic]
SEARCH DATE: [date] | DATABASES: [list]
SEARCH STRATEGY: [Boolean string]
RESULTS: [X] papers identified, [Y] included
EVIDENCE TABLE:
| Author (Year) | Design | n | Key Finding | Effect Size | Relevance |
|---------------|--------|---|-------------|-------------|-----------|
SYNTHESIS:
Theme 1: [Consensus/Conflict] — [summary]
Theme 2: [...]
GAPS IDENTIFIED:
- [Gap 1]
- [Gap 2]
EVIDENCE QUALITY: [Strong/Moderate/Weak] — [justification]
Example
Request: "Review the evidence for CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in therapeutic applications"
LITERATURE REVIEW: CRISPR-Cas9 Off-Target Effects in Therapeutics
SEARCH DATE: 2026-06-13 | DATABASES: PubMed, Scopus
SEARCH STRATEGY: ("CRISPR-Cas9" OR "gene editing") AND ("off-target" OR "specificity") AND ("therapeutic" OR "clinical")
RESULTS: 847 papers identified, 34 included (2020-2026)
EVIDENCE TABLE:
| Author (Year) | Design | n | Key Finding | Effect Size | Relevance |
|------------------|-------------|------|-------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------|
| Wienert 2023 | GUIDE-seq | 12 | Modified Cas9 reduces OT by 90% | 10-fold ↓ | High |
| Kosicki 2022 | WGS | 8 | Large deletions at OT sites | 0.1-4.5% freq | High |
SYNTHESIS:
Theme 1: Consensus — High-fidelity variants (eSpCas9, HF1) reduce OT 10-100×
Theme 2: Conflict — Detection sensitivity varies 1000× between methods
GAPS IDENTIFIED:
- Long-term OT effects in primary cells (>6 months)
- OT in vivo vs. in vitro correlation
EVIDENCE QUALITY: Moderate — mostly in vitro, limited in vivo validation
