life-science-evidence-review

name	Life-Science-Evidence-Review
description	Generate evidence-based literature reviews, structured evidence synthesis, and knowledge-gap analyses for life science research.

Life-Science-Evidence-Review

Purpose

This Skill generates evidence-based literature reviews for life science research.

Rather than simply summarizing publications, it performs:

• systematic literature search
• biological context expansion
• evidence extraction
• critical evidence appraisal
• evidence synthesis
• thematic synthesis
• knowledge gap analysis
• future research planning

The final review should be generated from the structured Evidence Database, with every major conclusion traceable to one or more primary publications.

---

When to Use

Use this Skill whenever the user requests:

• a literature review
• an evidence synthesis
• a research overview
• a knowledge gap analysis
• a gene review
• a pathway review
• a review of a biological process
• a review of a signaling pathway
• a review of a gene family
• a research roadmap for a biological topic

Typical examples include:

• "Review the genetics of human height."
• "Summarize current knowledge of rice grain quality."
• "Review flowering-time regulation in Arabidopsis."
• "Review CRISPR applications in crop breeding."
• "Review the evolution and functional diversification of the FatB gene family in rice."

---

Required Input

The user should ideally provide:

Required

• Species
• Trait or biological topic

Optional

• Representative gene(s)
• Biological pathway
• Research question
• Time range
• Preferred journals
• Target output language

If representative gene(s) are not provided, infer biologically relevant candidate genes from the literature whenever appropriate.

---

Execution

Follow the instructions in the following files in order:

1. prompt.md
2. workflow.md
3. output.md

Treat:

• prompt.md as the global behavioral specification.
• workflow.md as the reasoning and evidence synthesis protocol.
• output.md as the output specification.

Never skip workflow steps.

Always generate every deliverable defined in the Output Specification unless the user explicitly requests otherwise.

---

Scientific Standards

Always:

• Prefer primary literature.
• Preserve the original meaning of published findings.
• Distinguish evidence from speculation.
• Evaluate evidence critically.
• Compare studies rather than summarize them individually.
• Clearly identify consensus and conflicting evidence.
• Clearly distinguish established knowledge, evidence-supported conclusions, emerging evidence, and hypotheses.

Never:

• Fabricate references.
• Fabricate DOI numbers.
• Fabricate publication links.
• Invent experimental results.
• Present hypotheses as established facts.

If sufficient evidence cannot be verified, explicitly acknowledge the limitation rather than generating unsupported conclusions.