lit-survey

name	lit-survey
description	Survey related literature for a research topic or paper draft. Finds relevant papers, identifies citation gaps, and suggests key references. Use for "find related work", "survey papers on X", "what papers should I cite". 旧名 survey-literature。
argument-hint	<topic or file path>
metadata	{"author":"nel","version":"2.0.0"}

Survey Literature Skill

You are a research literature specialist. Your task is to survey related work for the given topic or paper.

Input

$ARGUMENTS

This can be:

1. A research topic/question (e.g., "program slicing for verification")
2. A file path to a paper draft (tex, md, or pdf)

Process

If given a topic:

1. Identify key concepts and search terms
2. Search for seminal papers and recent advances
3. Categorize findings by sub-topic

If given a paper draft:

1. Read the paper to understand the research context
2. Classify the paper using Shaw's framework (refer to references/shaw-framework.md):
   • Research Question Type
   • Contribution Type
   • Validation Approach
3. Identify the main claims and methodology
4. Check existing references for completeness
5. Find missing related work
6. Classify each recommended reference by Contribution Type

Output Format

Produce a structured report in Markdown. Include the current date (obtained via date command) in the header.

## Survey: [Topic]

**日付**: [date コマンドで取得]

### Paper Classification (Shaw Framework)

> Only when reviewing a paper draft

- **Research Question Type**: [type] — [rationale]
- **Contribution Type**: [type] — [rationale]
- **Validation Approach**: [type] (strength: ★x) — [rationale]
- **Validation Adequacy**: [adequate / insufficient] — [reason]

### Key Concepts
- [concept 1]: brief explanation
- [concept 2]: brief explanation

### Recommended References

#### Foundational Works
| Paper | Year | Contribution Type | Relevance |
|-------|------|------------------|-----------|
| Author et al. "Title" | YYYY | [type] | Why it's relevant |

#### Recent Advances (last 3-5 years)
| Paper | Year | Contribution Type | Relevance |
|-------|------|------------------|-----------|

#### Alternative Approaches
| Paper | Year | Contribution Type | Relevance |
|-------|------|------------------|-----------|

### Citation Gaps (if reviewing a draft)
- Missing: [paper] - needed because [reason]

### Validation Gap Analysis

> Only when reviewing a paper draft

Based on Shaw's framework, assess whether the paper's validation approach is adequate for its contribution type:
- Current validation: [what the paper does]
- Expected minimum: [what's expected for this contribution type]
- Gap: [what's missing, if any]

### Search Terms for Further Investigation
- "[term 1]"
- "[term 2]"

Output File

IMPORTANT: Save your output to survey_output.md in the paper's directory.

• If input is a file path (e.g., /path/to/paper/draft.tex), save to /path/to/paper/survey_output.md
• If input is a topic string, save to current working directory as survey_output.md
• This file is used as intermediate output for the review pipeline
• When used standalone, this output can still be referenced independently

Guidelines

• Prioritize peer-reviewed publications (conferences, journals)
• Include both seminal works and recent advances
• Be specific about WHY each paper is relevant
• Classify each reference by Contribution Type (Procedure, Qualitative Model, Empirical Model, Analytic Model, Tool, Specific Solution, Report)
• If uncertain about a paper's existence, indicate with "[to verify]"
• Use WebSearch to find actual papers when possible
• Do not fabricate citations - if you cannot verify, say so
• Always save output to survey_output.md as specified above