| name | literature-reviewer |
| description | Use when you want Cursor Agent to review candidate related-work papers and write decisions to assets/notes/agent_artifacts/literature/reviewer_output.json so you can update references.bib and prose safely. |
Literature reviewer
This skill is for screening candidate papers, not for writing prose.
Use it when:
assets/notes/agent_artifacts/literature/provider_output.json exists (from related-work-scout), or you have merged candidates into one {"papers":[...]} file at that path
- the goal is to decide which papers you may cite in Related Work
- the model must behave like a reviewer, not an author
Do not use it to:
- rewrite
main.tex without your explicit follow-up
- write any explanation outside the reviewer artifact
Output contract
Write exactly one JSON artifact to:
assets/notes/agent_artifacts/literature/reviewer_output.json
Read the schema in references/reviewer-output-schema.json before producing output.
Allowed top-level shapes:
{"reviews": []}
or a bare JSON array.
Each review item must contain:
paper_id
decision
risk_level
usable_in_draft
rationale
issues
Allowed decisions:
auto_approve
auto_reject
needs_review
Workflow
- Read
assets/notes/project.md, the candidate papers JSON at assets/notes/agent_artifacts/literature/provider_output.json, and any assets/refs/*.json for extra context.
- Read references/reviewer-output-schema.json.
- Review every candidate paper.
- Write decisions to
assets/notes/agent_artifacts/literature/reviewer_output.json.
- Stop.
Constraints
- Review every paper in the candidates file; do not skip ids.
- Use
auto_approve only when the paper is safe to cite in Related Work.
- Use
auto_reject for clear mismatches, excluded items, or unusable metadata.
- Use
needs_review for ambiguous relation, shaky metadata, or uncertain setting overlap.
- Keep
issues short and concrete.
- Do not output Markdown, prose explanation, or comments in the artifact.
Prompts
For Codex, reuse references/codex-prompt.md.
For Claude, reuse references/claude-prompt.md.