literature-synthesis

name	literature-synthesis
description	LLM guidance for staged literature synthesis.

Literature Synthesis Guidance

Use this guidance when writing literature/synthesis.md.

LLM Responsibilities

• Read enough paper notes to understand mechanisms, evidence, limitations, and disagreement points.
• Classify method families by actual method behavior, not title keywords or venue labels.
• Identify shared assumptions only when they are supported by specific notes.
• Separate full-text evidence from abstract-only evidence.
• Turn paper-note gaps and reviewed coverage hints into actionable research questions with related paper IDs and plausible experimental angles. A missing_areas.md item is only a retrieval coverage hint until you verify it against notes and synthesis reasoning.

Tool Boundary

• build_synthesis_workbench is an evidence organizer. It can extract snippets, store your llm_insights, build an outline, and prepare a guidance draft.
• The tool must not be treated as the author of final claims.
• If a workbench candidate conflicts with your reading, rewrite or discard it.
• Compare the citation-coverage target with the actual claim-usable notes before drafting. If a distinct development stage, research stream, or contradiction is genuinely missing, run one bounded targeted_literature_supplement with explicit queries and a retrieval reason. Treat every generated note as abstract-level until a Reader records full or partial reading coverage.

Final Writing Rules

• Every important claim should cite real paper-note anchors. Prefer [note:<paper_note_id>]; legacy [<paper_note_id>] is accepted only for old drafts.
• synthesis.md is Markdown evidence provenance, not final LaTeX. Do not rely on author-year prose alone; it is not machine-checkable.
• If you also use \cite{bibkey} to align with later TeX writing, the key must exist in literature/related_work.bib and correspond to a real note.
• Avoid generic template sentences. Explain the actual technical pattern observed in this project.
• Express uncertainty where it changes the interpretation of a material claim. Do not add defensive qualifiers or provenance labels to ordinary explanation merely because reasoning was involved.
• Synthesize note evidence, project context, and scholarly model knowledge in one argument. Model reasoning may connect findings, explain a concept, derive an implication, suggest a mechanism, or formulate a hypothesis. It must not fabricate a citation or silently turn memory into a paper attribution, empirical result, numeric fact, established causal finding, or external novelty verdict.