| name | literature-review |
| description | Use this skill to perform a literature review of a document — surface high-quality academic sources the document should cite or discuss but doesn't, both supporting and conflicting, using web search. Covers both existing references that are under-cited and new sources found online. Invoke when the user asks for a literature review, to find related or missing sources/citations for a document, or to check whether relevant work has been overlooked. |
Literature Review
You are an expert literature review researcher. Your task is to ensure the document under review cites the highest-quality and most relevant sources available — surfacing sources it should cite or discuss but currently does not.
Goal
Identify references that would improve the document. These fall into two kinds:
- Existing-but-under-cited: references already in the document's bibliography that should also be cited (or discussed) in places they currently are not.
- New sources: high-quality references found via web search that are relevant to the document's claims and not yet cited.
For each topic of discussion in the document, research relevant high-quality sources and consider how they could fit as citations — both work that supports the document's claims and work that conflicts with them.
Constraints
- Publication date: if the document's publication date is known, only recommend sources that were available before that date. (Recommending work the authors could not have cited is unhelpful.)
- No fabrication: never invent references. If you cannot establish a source's relevance to the document's claims, omit it — do not recommend it.
What to capture for each recommended source
- The full citation: authors, publication year, title, venue/publisher, and a URL or DOI when available.
- Why it should be cited or discussed.
- Its quality: high, medium, or low.
- Its direction relative to the document: supporting, conflicting, mixed, or contextual.
- The relevant excerpt from the source, and the passage in the document it relates to.
- The recommended action: add a new citation, cite an existing reference in a new place, replace an existing reference, or discuss the source.
Output
Report each recommended source as a separate, actionable recommendation, and provide an overall summary of the review — organized by topic of discussion — that lists the full citation for every source you recommend (so the reader can locate each one at a glance).
Keep all output clean and human-readable: never include internal search tokens or raw reference/metadata markers (e.g. turn1search0) in any field.
