Skip to content
Back to skills

Parsifal Slr Guide

ASecurity

Plan and manage systematic literature reviews with Parsifal platform

  • 3,639 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added June 6, 2026
researchpythongobashgitdatabase

Security analysis

A96/100
  • mediumInstalls packages at runtime which could introduce malicious dependencies

Pro shows the line behind each finding and how to fix it

Scanned June 6, 2026

npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill parsifal-slr-guide --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Parsifal Slr Guide?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Parsifal Slr Guide
[![Security: A β€” Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-parsifal-slr-guide/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-parsifal-slr-guide)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: parsifal-slr-guide
description: "Plan and manage systematic literature reviews with Parsifal platform"
metadata:
  openclaw:
    emoji: "πŸ“‹"
    category: "research"
    subcategory: "methodology"
    keywords: ["Parsifal", "systematic review", "SLR", "review protocol", "PICO", "research methodology"]
    source: "https://github.com/vitorfs/parsifal"
---

# Parsifal Systematic Literature Review Guide

## Overview

Parsifal is a web-based tool for planning and managing systematic literature reviews (SLRs) following established protocols (Kitchenham, PRISMA). It guides researchers through the complete SLR process: defining research questions, setting inclusion/exclusion criteria, planning search strings, and tracking the screening process. Open-source and self-hostable.

## SLR Process with Parsifal

### Phase 1: Planning

#### Define Research Questions

Structure questions using PICO framework:
- **P**opulation: What group/domain?
- **I**ntervention: What technique/method?
- **C**omparison: Compared to what?
- **O**utcome: What results measured?

```
Example:
P: Software development teams
I: AI-assisted code review
C: Manual code review
O: Defect detection rate, review time

Research Questions:
RQ1: Does AI-assisted code review improve defect detection?
RQ2: What is the time savings compared to manual review?
RQ3: What types of defects are best detected by AI tools?
```

#### Set Criteria

```
Inclusion Criteria:
IC1: Studies comparing AI vs manual code review
IC2: Published in peer-reviewed venues (2020-2026)
IC3: Reports quantitative metrics

Exclusion Criteria:
EC1: Grey literature / blog posts
EC2: Studies with fewer than 10 participants
EC3: Non-English publications
```

### Phase 2: Search Strategy

#### Build Search String

```
("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning")
AND
("code review" OR "code inspection" OR "static analysis")
AND
("defect detection" OR "bug finding" OR "software quality")
```

#### Database Mapping

| Database | Adapted Query | Expected Results |
|----------|--------------|-----------------|
| Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY(...) | ~500 |
| IEEE Xplore | querytext=... | ~300 |
| ACM DL | [[Abstract: ...]] | ~200 |
| Web of Science | TS=(...) | ~400 |

### Phase 3: Selection

#### Screening Steps

1. **Remove duplicates** β€” Match by DOI, title similarity
2. **Title screening** β€” Quick relevance assessment
3. **Abstract screening** β€” Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria
4. **Full-text review** β€” Detailed evaluation

#### Quality Assessment

Define quality criteria and scoring:

| Criterion | Score |
|-----------|-------|
| Clear research question stated | 0/0.5/1 |
| Methodology described in detail | 0/0.5/1 |
| Threats to validity discussed | 0/0.5/1 |
| Results statistically analyzed | 0/0.5/1 |
| Study replicable from description | 0/0.5/1 |

### Phase 4: Extraction

#### Data Extraction Form

```
For each included paper, extract:
- Study ID
- Authors, Year, Venue
- Study type (experiment/case study/survey)
- Population size
- AI technique used
- Metrics reported (precision, recall, F1, time)
- Key findings
- Limitations noted
```

### Phase 5: Synthesis

#### Report with PRISMA

```
Identification: 1,400 records
  ↓ Remove duplicates: -350
Screening: 1,050 titles/abstracts
  ↓ Exclude irrelevant: -900
Eligibility: 150 full-text assessed
  ↓ Exclude by criteria: -108
Included: 42 studies in final review
```

## Self-Hosting Parsifal

```bash
git clone https://github.com/vitorfs/parsifal.git
cd parsifal
pip install -r requirements.txt
python manage.py migrate
python manage.py runserver
# Access at http://localhost:8000
```

## SLR Best Practices

1. **Register protocol** before starting (PROSPERO for health, OSF for others)
2. **Two independent reviewers** for screening to reduce bias
3. **Track inter-rater agreement** (Cohen's kappa > 0.8)
4. **Document deviations** from the original protocol
5. **Use PRISMA checklist** for reporting completeness

## References

- [Parsifal](https://github.com/vitorfs/parsifal)
- Kitchenham, B. & Charters, S. (2007). "Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering."
- [PRISMA Statement](http://www.prisma-statement.org/)
- [PROSPERO Registry](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/)

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.