| name | lit-review |
| description | Retrieves papers from local folder or ArXiv and Semantic Scholar using domain-aware keyword expansion, builds synthesis matrix, identifies gaps. Calls tools/arxiv_fetch.py and tools/semantic_scholar_fetch.py. Writes to output/paper-cache/ and output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md. |
| argument-hint | ["paper-topic-or-url"] |
| tools | Bash, Read, Write, WebFetch, WebSearch, Agent, Glob, Grep, |
Skill: lit-review
You perform a targeted literature review for $ARGUMENTS. Your outputs feed idea discovery and paper writing. This skill checks multiple sources in priority order. All are optional — if a source is not configured or not requested, skip it silently.
Research topic: $ARGUMENTS
Constants
- PAPER_LIBRARY — Local directory containing user's paper collection (PDFs). Check these paths in order:
papers/ in the current project directory
- Custom path specified by user in
CLAUDE.md under ## Constants
- MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS = 30 — Maximum number of local PDFs to scan (read first 3 pages each). If more are found, prioritize by filename relevance to the topic.
- ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = false — When
true, download top 3-5 most relevant arXiv PDFs to PAPER_LIBRARY after search. When false (default), only fetch metadata (title, abstract, authors) via arXiv API — no files are downloaded.
- ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD = 5 — Maximum number of PDFs to download when
ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true.
💡 Overrides:
/lit-review "topic" — paper library: ~/my_papers/ — custom local PDF path
Source Selection
Parse $ARGUMENTS for a — sources: directive:
- If
— sources: is specified: Only search the listed sources (comma-separated). Valid values: zotero, obsidian, local, web, semantic-scholar, all.
- If not specified: Default to
all — search every available source in priority order (semantic-scholar is excluded from all; it must be explicitly listed).
Examples:
/lit-review "diffusion models" → all (default, no S2)
/lit-review "diffusion models" — sources: all → all (default, no S2)
/lit-review "diffusion models" — sources: zotero → Zotero only
/lit-review "diffusion models" — sources: zotero, web → Zotero + web
/lit-review "diffusion models" — sources: local → local PDFs only
/lit-review "topic" — sources: obsidian, local, web → skip Zotero
/lit-review "topic" — sources: web, semantic-scholar → web + S2 API (IEEE/ACM venue papers)
/lit-review "topic" — sources: all, semantic-scholar → all + S2 API
Source Table
| Priority | Source | ID | How to detect | What it provides |
|---|
| 1 | Zotero (via MCP) | zotero | Try calling any mcp__zotero__* tool — if unavailable, skip | Collections, tags, annotations, PDF highlights, BibTeX, semantic search |
| 2 | Obsidian (via MCP) | obsidian | Try calling any mcp__obsidian-vault__* tool — if unavailable, skip | Research notes, paper summaries, tagged references, wikilinks |
| 3 | Local PDFs | local | Glob: papers/**/*.pdf | Raw PDF content (first 3 pages) |
| 4 | Web search | web | Always available (WebSearch) | arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar |
| 5 | Semantic Scholar API | semantic-scholar | tools/semantic_scholar_fetch.py exists | Published venue papers (IEEE, ACM, Springer) with structured metadata: citation counts, venue info, TLDR. Only runs when explicitly requested via — sources: semantic-scholar or — sources: web, semantic-scholar |
Graceful degradation: If no MCP servers are configured, the skill works exactly as before (local PDFs + web search). Zotero and Obsidian are pure additions.
Workflow
Step 0a: Search Zotero Library (if available)
Skip this step entirely if Zotero MCP is not configured.
Try calling a Zotero MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
- Search by topic: Use the Zotero search tool to find papers matching the research topic
- Read collections: Check if the user has a relevant collection/folder for this topic
- Extract annotations: For highly relevant papers, pull PDF highlights and notes — these represent what the user found important
- Export BibTeX: Get citation data for relevant papers (useful for
/paper-draft later)
- Compile results: For each relevant Zotero entry, extract:
- Title, authors, year, venue
- User's annotations/highlights (if any)
- Tags the user assigned
- Which collection it belongs to
📚 Zotero annotations are gold — they show what the user personally highlighted as important, which is far more valuable than generic summaries.
Step 0b: Search Obsidian Vault (if available)
Skip this step entirely if Obsidian MCP is not configured.
Try calling an Obsidian MCP tool (e.g., search). If it succeeds:
- Search vault: Search for notes related to the research topic
- Check tags: Look for notes tagged with relevant topics (e.g.,
#diffusion-models, #paper-review)
- Read research notes: For relevant notes, extract the user's own summaries and insights
- Follow links: If notes link to other relevant notes (wikilinks), follow them for additional context
- Compile results: For each relevant note:
- Note title and path
- User's summary/insights
- Links to other notes (research graph)
- Any frontmatter metadata (paper URL, status, rating)
📝 Obsidian notes represent the user's processed understanding — more valuable than raw paper content for understanding their perspective.
Step 0c: Scan Local Paper Library
Before searching online, check if the user already has relevant papers locally:
-
Locate library: Check PAPER_LIBRARY paths for PDF files
Glob: papers/**/*.pdf
-
De-duplicate against Zotero: If Step 0a found papers, skip any local PDFs already covered by Zotero results (match by filename or title).
-
Filter by relevance: Match filenames and first-page content against the research topic. Skip clearly unrelated papers.
-
Summarize relevant papers: For each relevant local PDF (up to MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS):
- Read first 3 pages (title, abstract, intro)
- Extract: title, authors, year, core contribution, relevance to topic
- Flag papers that are directly related vs tangentially related
-
Build local knowledge base: Compile summaries into a "papers you already have" section. This becomes the starting point — external search fills the gaps.
📚 If no local papers are found, skip to Step 1. If the user has a comprehensive local collection, the external search can be more targeted (focus on what's missing).
Step 1: Search (external)
- Use WebSearch to find recent papers on the topic
- Check arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar
- Focus on papers from last 3 years unless studying foundational work
- De-duplicate: Skip papers already found in Zotero, Obsidian, or local library
arXiv API search (always runs, no download by default):
Locate the fetch script and search arXiv directly:
SCRIPT=$(find tools/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$SCRIPT" ] && SCRIPT=$(find ~/.claude/skills/arxiv/ -name "arxiv_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
python3 "$SCRIPT" search "QUERY" --max 10
If arxiv_fetch.py is not found, fall back to WebSearch for arXiv (same as before).
The arXiv API returns structured metadata (title, abstract, full author list, categories, dates) — richer than WebSearch snippets. Merge these results with WebSearch findings and de-duplicate.
Semantic Scholar API search (only when semantic-scholar is in sources):
When the user explicitly requests — sources: semantic-scholar (or — sources: web, semantic-scholar), search for published venue papers beyond arXiv:
S2_SCRIPT=$(find tools/ -name "semantic_scholar_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$S2_SCRIPT" ] && S2_SCRIPT=$(find ~/.claude/skills/semantic-scholar/ -name "semantic_scholar_fetch.py" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
python3 "$S2_SCRIPT" search "QUERY" --max 10 \
--fields-of-study "GIScience, GeoAI" \
--publication-types "JournalArticle, Conference"
If semantic_scholar_fetch.py is not found, skip silently.
Why use Semantic Scholar? Many IEEE/ACM journal papers are NOT on arXiv. S2 fills the gap for published venue-only papers with citation counts and venue metadata.
De-duplication between arXiv and S2: Match by arXiv ID (S2 returns externalIds.ArXiv):
- If a paper appears in both: check S2's
venue/publicationVenue — if it has been published in a journal/conference (e.g. IEEE TWC, JSAC), use S2's metadata (venue, citationCount, DOI) as the authoritative version, since the published version supersedes the preprint. Keep the arXiv PDF link for download.
- If the S2 match has no venue (still just a preprint indexed by S2): keep the arXiv version as-is.
- S2 results without
externalIds.ArXiv are venue-only papers not on arXiv — these are the unique value of this source.
Optional PDF download (only when ARXIV_DOWNLOAD = true):
After all sources are searched and papers are ranked by relevance:
python3 "$SCRIPT" download ARXIV_ID --dir papers/
- Only download papers ranked in the top ARXIV_MAX_DOWNLOAD by relevance
- Skip papers already in the local library
- 1-second delay between downloads (rate limiting)
- Verify each PDF > 10 KB
Step 2: Analyze Each Paper
For each relevant paper (from all sources), extract:
- Problem: What gap does it address?
- Method: Core technical contribution (1-2 sentences)
- Results: Key numbers/claims
- Relevance: How does it relate to our work?
- Source: Where we found it (Zotero/Obsidian/local/web) — helps user know what they already have vs what's new
Step 3: Synthesize
- Group papers by approach/theme
- Identify consensus vs disagreements in the field
- Find gaps that our work could fill
- If Obsidian notes exist, incorporate the user's own insights into the synthesis
Read skills/knowledge/synthesis-analyst.md for the synthesis protocol. Ignore if skills/knowledge/synthesis-analyst.md not found.
then:
- Group papers by theme (not chronology).
- Build a synthesis matrix: paper × (method, dataset, key metric, finding, limitation).
- Identify consensus views, contradictions, and geographic biases.
- Write synthesis to the Synthesis section of
output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md.
Find gaps that our work can fill. For each gap dimension (Methodological, Geographic, Temporal, Data, Equity, Validation):
- Score gap: Novelty × 0.4 + Feasibility × 0.35 + Impact × 0.25
- Rank top 5 gaps
- Write to the Gap Analysis section of
output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md
Step 4: Output
Present as a structured literature table:
| Paper | Venue | Method | Key Result | Relevance to Us | Source |
|-------|-------|--------|------------|-----------------|--------|
Plus a narrative summary of the landscape (3-5 paragraphs).
If Zotero BibTeX was exported, include a references.bib snippet for direct use in paper writing.
Step 5: Save (if requested)
- Save paper PDFs to
papers/
- Update related work notes in project memory
- Update
memory/MEMORY.md
- If Obsidian is available, optionally create a literature review note in the vault
Outputs
output/paper-cache/ — JSON paper metadata files
output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md — single consolidated report containing:
- Findings — one-line summaries of key discoveries (appended across runs; dated entries)
- Synthesis (YYYY-MM-DD) — thematic synthesis with paper × (method, dataset, metric, finding, limitation) matrix
- Gap Analysis — ranked top-5 gaps across Methodological, Geographic, Temporal, Data, Equity, Validation dimensions
When re-running the skill, append new dated Synthesis and Gap Analysis sections rather than overwriting — preserves history. Findings entries are always appended.
Key Rules
- Always include paper citations (authors, year, venue)
- Distinguish between peer-reviewed and preprints
- Be honest about limitations of each paper
- Note if a paper directly competes with or supports our approach
- Never fail because a MCP server is not configured — always fall back gracefully to the next data source
- Zotero/Obsidian tools may have different names depending on how the user configured the MCP server (e.g.,
mcp__zotero__search or mcp__zotero-mcp__search_items). Try the most common patterns and adapt.