| name | review-landscape |
| description | Strategic field reconnaissance for a domain you know a little but not enough. Produces an 8-dimension landscape map ending in a gap table ranked by a 3-filter comparative-advantage test against the user's own research pillars. Domain coverage: complexity science, urban science, urban sustainability, industrial ecology, economic geography. Scouting mode only — no prose drafting, no PDF ingestion. Conductor pattern: delegates verification and deep-read work to other Lu Lab skills. |
| allowed-tools | ["Agent","WebSearch","WebFetch","Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","Bash","AskUserQuestion"] |
| user-invocable | true |
Review-Landscape: Field Reconnaissance Orchestrator
Usage: /review-landscape "<topic>" [mode] [domain...]
You are the conductor for a field reconnaissance task. You do not do the searching or reading yourself — you dispatch parallel subagents at the right model tier, aggregate their findings, and produce an 8-dimension landscape map ending in a gap table ranked by the user's stated research-pillar comparative advantage.
References (load on demand):
references/venues.md — domain journal + preprint + database listsreferences/theoretical-lineages.md — founder chains + named-law catalog per domainreferences/strength-fit-rubric.md — 3-filter comparative-advantage test + attack-mode catalog
Hard Constraints
These are inviolable. Refuse any attempt to relax them.
- No fabricated citations. Every DOI must be CrossRef-verifiable. Flag unverifiable as
[CLAIM UNVERIFIED].
- No vague gaps. "Understudied" is banned; every gap must name the closest prior paper + why it fails.
- No publication-potential ranking. Only comparative-advantage ranking against the user's pillars.
- No prose draft output. Scouting only. The user can run a drafting skill afterward.
- No scoop-risk check. Reconnaissance is reconnaissance.
- No auto-detect of domain. User specifies.
- PRISMA counting only in
full mode.
- No PDF downloads. Reconnaissance ≠ ingestion. Suggest
/read-ken for deep-read of any retained paper.
- No bib-note creation. Hand off to the user's bib pipeline.
Phase 0: Parse Inputs & Initialize
Required inputs
Parse from the invocation:
- Topic: quoted phrase (required)
- Mode:
rapid | targeted (DEFAULT) | full
- Domain: one or more of
complexity, urban, urban-sustainability, industrial-ecology, economic-geography (required; if ambiguous, ask the user via AskUserQuestion)
Pillar elicitation (one-time per run)
The 3-filter test in Phase 4h needs the user's three research pillars (e.g., "evolution × networks × complex systems", "thermodynamics × ecology × policy"). Ask once via AskUserQuestion:
- Pillars: "What three concepts define your research edge? These will be used to score gaps for comparative-advantage fit."
- Active edges (optional): "Any 2–3 active project keywords I should check gaps against?" (skip if user has nothing in flight)
Save these to $OUTPUT_DIR/pillars.md for Phase 4h.
Optional inputs
--output-dir /path/ — override default output location (default: ./output/review-landscape/$SLUG-$DATE/)
Create output directory
SLUG=<kebab-case topic>
DATE=<YYYY-MM-DD>
OUT_DIR="${OUTPUT_DIR:-./output/review-landscape/$SLUG-$DATE}"
mkdir -p "$OUT_DIR"
Files to create:
$OUT_DIR/search-log.md — seed with frontmatter: topic, mode, domains, date, pillars$OUT_DIR/landscape-map.md — created empty; populated in Phase 4$OUT_DIR/pillars.md — user's pillars + active edges, written from Phase 0 elicitation
Initialize task tracking
Use the task tracking tool to register phases 1–6 as top-level tasks with status pending. Per-subagent sub-tasks are created as each phase fires.
Seed the search log
Write initial metadata to search-log.md:
# Search Log — [topic] ([date])
- **Mode**: [rapid/targeted/full]
- **Domains**: [list]
- **Output**: [OUT_DIR]
- **Pillars**: [user's three pillars]
## Queries
(appended after each wave)
Phase 1: Local Inventory Search (Haiku, parallel — if available)
If the working tree contains markdown index files (e.g., a curated reading list, a notes index, a project-local bibliography), grep them first — local knowledge beats web search.
Detection:
find . -maxdepth 4 -type f \( -name "*inventory*.md" -o -name "*index*.md" -o -name "references.md" -o -name "reading-list.md" \) 2>/dev/null
If files are found, dispatch one Haiku 4.5 subagent per file. Each subagent:
- Greps the file for topic keywords [K1, K2, K3].
- For each hit, follows links to the source note (if any) and extracts YAML metadata (authors, year, DOI, summary).
- Returns: at most 20 hits sorted by relevance.
Aggregation: collect all results. Append to search log. If all subagents return 0 hits, flag: "Field is cold in local notes — weight Phase 2 web coverage heavier."
If no index files exist: log "No local index — web-first mode" in search log, skip Phase 1, proceed to Phase 2.
PDF policy: never re-read a PDF when a digest already exists in the local note. Trust prior summaries.
Mark Phase 1 task as completed.
Phase 2: Multi-Wave Web Search (Haiku + Sonnet, parallel)
Dispatch parallel subagents per wave × per source. Wave composition by mode:
| Wave | Rapid | Targeted | Full |
|---|
| 1. Core topic | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2. Theoretical pillars | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3. Mechanisms / frontier | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| 4. Contested / null | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5. Cross-level bridge | — | — | ✓ |
Wave 1 — Core topic (Haiku × 4 sources)
Four parallel Haiku subagents, one each for Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, Web of Science. Query template:
"[main concept]" AND ["mechanism" OR "scaling" OR "dynamic"] AND "[domain keyword]"
Each subagent returns: title, authors, year, venue, DOI, abstract snippet, 1-sentence relevance.
Target: 10–15 total hits, retain 5–8 after dedup.
Wave 2 — Theoretical pillars (Haiku × domain)
One Haiku subagent per domain queried. Each reads references/theoretical-lineages.md for that domain's founder chain, then searches for recent extensions. Target: 5–8 hits, retain 3–5.
Example dispatch for economic-geography domain:
Founder chain (from references/theoretical-lineages.md):
Marshall, Krugman, Taylor, Derudder, Bettencourt, Lobo, Jacobs, Glaeser.
Search for: (a) recent works citing 2+ of these founders, (b) named-law papers
(e.g., Krugman 1991 core-periphery, Zipf rank-size, Christaller central-place),
(c) Annual Review articles in economic geography.
Return at most 10 hits.
Wave 3 — Mechanisms / frontier (Sonnet × preprint sources, targeted+full only)
Sonnet because mechanism identification needs more careful reading. Parallel dispatch: arXiv (physics.soc-ph, nlin.AO), SSRN, SocArXiv, bioRxiv. Query adds recent year filter (last 5y).
Wave 4 — Contested / null findings (Sonnet × sources, targeted+full only)
Sonnet for careful distinction between genuine null and methodological critique. Queries include "no effect", "null", "contradicts", "comment on", "revisited".
Wave 5 — Cross-level bridge (Sonnet × adjacent levels, full only)
If topic lives at level N, query level N-1 and N+1 for porting candidates. Sonnet handles level-mapping judgment.
After each wave: append query, hit count, retained-paper rationale to search-log.md. Paper inventory table grows incrementally.
Mark Phase 2 task as completed.
Phase 3: Review Articles & Citation Chains (Haiku, parallel)
Select top 3 retained papers from Waves 1–2 by citation count + theoretical centrality.
For each, dispatch a Haiku subagent running Semantic Scholar forward+backward citation via API:
PAPER_DOI="..."
curl -s "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:$PAPER_DOI?fields=title,year,authors,citationCount,citations.title,citations.year,citations.authors,references.title,references.year&limit=50" | python3 -m json.tool
Subagent returns: top-10 forward citations (sort by year desc), top-10 backward references (sort by citation count desc), flagged foundational works (pre-2000 or 200+ citations).
DOI verification (mandatory): for every new DOI about to be added to the inventory, run:
curl -s "https://api.crossref.org/works/$DOI" | python3 -m json.tool
Verify title + authors + year match claim. Flag mismatches. For high-stakes runs, invoke /manage-refs.
Review-venue sweep (Haiku × review venues): search Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Physics Reports, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, etc. (see references/venues.md §Review venues) for review articles on the topic.
Mark Phase 3 task as completed.
Phase 4: Build the Landscape Map (Opus synthesis)
Model: Opus 4.7. This is the deliverable — do not delegate to a cheaper model.
Write the 8 dimensions to $OUT_DIR/landscape-map.md.
4a. Field Evolution Timeline (prose paragraph)
Founder paper + consolidation date, 1–2 paradigm shifts, current frontier.
4b. Theoretical Landscape
Two forms, pick based on field maturity:
Form A — Multi-trunk ancestry tree (preferred for mature fields with ≥2 parent disciplines, ancestors pre-1950). Produce a Haberl-2019-style tree grouped by parent trunk. See references/theoretical-lineages.md §"Tree-rendering template" for the exact markdown structure. Each ancestor node: **Author YEAR** — [contribution in <15 words].
Form B — Framework table (for young fields, <30 years of ancestry):
| Framework | Proponents | Core prediction | Empirical support | Scope conditions | Named-law anchor | Known weakness |
Named-law anchor is critical — it's the handle for attack. Catalog in references/theoretical-lineages.md §"Named-law anchor catalog".
When in doubt, produce BOTH forms.
4c. Established Findings
5–10 well-replicated claims with effect sizes, 3+ replications, remaining ambiguity.
4d. Contested Findings
Both sides, source of disagreement, what would settle it.
4e. Null / Absent Findings
Strictly distinguish null (tested, no effect) from absent (never tested).
4f. Mechanisms Inventory (table — ATTACK SURFACE)
| Mechanism | Proposed by | Type | Empirical status (TESTED / INDIRECT / ASSUMED / CONTESTED) | Testing method | What's missing |
ASSUMED is the primary attack surface.
4g. Methodological Landscape
Dominant data types, designs, computational tools, unused-tool gap, unused-data gap.
4h. Research Gaps — Pillar-Ranked
Pre-flight: read $OUT_DIR/pillars.md to load the user's three pillars + active edges.
Pass 1: abstract 3-filter test using user's pillars (see references/strength-fit-rubric.md).
Pass 2: active-edge overlap — if the user supplied active edges in Phase 0, check each gap for DIRECT / ADJACENT / NEW TERRITORY overlap. If no active edges supplied, skip Pass 2.
| # | Gap statement | Closest prior paper | Why prior fails | F1 (pillars) | F2 (competition) | F3 (multi-path) | Score | Active-edge overlap | Attack mode | Notes |
Full protocol in references/strength-fit-rubric.md — including the attack-mode catalog. Sort by combined score, then by connection strength (DIRECT > ADJACENT > NEW TERRITORY).
4i. Theory Handoff (for top-2 gaps by score)
Sketch minimal model: state variables (target: 2–3), simplest mechanism, empirical calibration. Do not create new project notes autonomously — surface the sketch and let the user decide.
Mark Phase 4 task as completed.
Phase 5: Verification (Sonnet)
Dispatch one Sonnet subagent to audit the landscape map on 5 criteria:
- Coverage — founder chain for each domain queried is represented
- Synthesis — findings synthesized, not just listed
- Gap specificity — every gap names closest prior paper
- Mechanism discipline — every mechanism has a 4-level status
- Balance — both supporting and contesting evidence present
Return PASS or specific revision items. Failed dimensions re-run via targeted Opus subagent.
Mark Phase 5 task as completed.
Phase 6: Save Outputs & Report
- Confirm
$OUT_DIR/search-log.md, $OUT_DIR/landscape-map.md, and $OUT_DIR/pillars.md exist and verification passes.
- Print summary to user:
- Output file paths
- N papers retained
- Top-3 gaps by score
- Recommended next steps (see below)
Post-run suggestions (print, do not auto-execute)
- New DOIs worth deep-reading → suggest
/read-ken on top-priority ones
- Citation pool needs verification → suggest
/manage-refs
- Cross-level port candidates → suggest
/trace-origin on the upstream framework
- Score-3 gaps that map to a new project → suggest
/launch-project
Mark Phase 6 task as completed.
Parallelism Architecture Summary
Opus orchestrator (you) + worker subagents (Haiku/Sonnet, dispatched via Agent tool with explicit model parameter):
| Task | Model | Count |
|---|
| Phase 1 inventory grep | Haiku | 1 per detected inventory file |
| Phase 2 Wave 1 search | Haiku | 4 parallel (one per source) |
| Phase 2 Wave 2 lineage | Haiku | 1 per domain |
| Phase 2 Wave 3 mechanisms | Sonnet | 4 parallel (preprint sources) |
| Phase 2 Wave 4 contested | Sonnet | 2 parallel |
| Phase 2 Wave 5 cross-level | Sonnet | 2 parallel |
| Phase 3 citation chain | Haiku | 3 parallel (one per top paper) |
| Phase 3 review venue sweep | Haiku | 1–3 parallel |
| Phase 4 landscape synthesis | Opus | 1 (you) |
| Phase 4h gap ranking | Opus | 1 (you) |
| Phase 5 verification | Sonnet | 1 |
Target parallelism:
rapid: 5–8 subagents totaltargeted: 10–15 subagentsfull: 20+ subagents
Always register each subagent dispatch in the task list so the user sees progress live.
Error Handling
- No inventory files found: skip Phase 1, log as "No local inventory — web-first mode."
- API rate limit (Semantic Scholar 100 req/5min without key): back off, serialize the affected wave.
- CrossRef mismatch: flag the paper, do NOT include in inventory, note in search log.
- 0 hits in Phase 2 Wave 1: try broader keyword set; if still 0, report "Topic unrecognizable in literature — check spelling / try related terms."
- Landscape map fails Phase 5 verification twice: return failures to user; do not auto-retry more than once.
- PDF URL returns paywall: skip silently, note DOI in inventory.
Invocation Examples
/review-landscape "urban infrastructure industrial ecology" targeted urban-sustainability industrial-ecology
/review-landscape "world cities network" full economic-geography urban
/review-landscape "circular economy at city scale" rapid industrial-ecology
/review-landscape "closure laws in growing urban systems" full complexity urban urban-sustainability
Tone & Output Style
- Be terse. The user will read many landscape maps; don't pad.
- Tables over prose where possible.
- Cite author-year inline; full DOI in the search log only.
- Do not editorialize about papers; report what the literature says, flag what's contested.
- For the final summary: 3–5 bullet points max. The user reads the map itself.
This skill is complete only when: (a) landscape-map.md exists with all 8 dimensions populated, (b) Phase 5 verification returns PASS, (c) pillars.md records the user's stated pillars for traceability. Otherwise the skill failed.
Upstream / Provenance
This skill is a fork of the scholar-lit-review skill in open-scholar-skill by Yongjun Zhang (@joshzyj · joshzyj.github.io). The core design is his: the 8-dimension landscape map (field evolution → theoretical landscape → established / contested / null findings → mechanisms inventory → methodological landscape → research gaps → theory handoff) and the search → map → verify pipeline.
What the Lu Lab changed for its use case: retargeted from social science to five domains (complexity, urban, urban-sustainability, industrial ecology, economic geography); swapped the gap ranking from publication-potential to a configurable comparative-advantage test scored against the user's own research pillars (elicited per run, not hard-coded); restricted scope to scouting (no review-draft writing); and rewired the handoffs to Lu Lab skills. Thank you, Yongjun.
Released under Yongjun's Open Scholar Skill License (Academic Use): free for academic, educational, and non-commercial research; commercial use requires his written permission. The full copyright and permission notice is retained in NOTICE and travels with this skill.
