Structured literature review — search strategy, inclusion/exclusion screening, quality appraisal, and synthesis map of a research field. Use when user says "literature review", "lit review", or needs to map what is already known about a topic.
Scanned 10/6/2026
npx -y skills add meshcode-ai/skills-research --skill res-litreview --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Res Litreview?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/meshcode-ai-res-litreview)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: res-litreview
description: Structured literature review — search strategy, inclusion/exclusion screening, quality appraisal, and synthesis map of a research field. Use when user says "literature review", "lit review", or needs to map what is already known about a topic.
license: MIT
metadata:
source: "alirezarezvani/claude-skills@research/ (MIT)"
category: research
---
# Literature Review
## Search strategy
- Separate databases: academic (Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, etc.) vs. industry (reports, blogs) — do not mix them in one section.
- Search terms: 2–3 core concepts × synonyms/English aliases. Record which query was run on which database (reproducibility).
- Snowballing: expand citations and cited-by of 3 representative papers one generation at a time. Discovery usually saturates at 20–40 papers total.
## Screening criteria (PRISMA flow)
1. Title/abstract → include/exclude. **Record a one-line exclusion reason for each** (to address bias disputes later).
2. Full-text appraisal: ① study-design tier (experiment > cohort > cross-sectional > case report) ② sample size & representativeness ③ data & code availability ④ journal/source credibility ⑤ conflicts of interest & funding.
3. Duplicate studies of the same finding count as 1 meta-unit — organize by finding, not by study.
## Synthesis principles
- The unit is the **finding**, not the study name: what was found, in whom, how it was established.
- Split findings into 3 groups: replicated / single-study / conflicting. Interpret conflicts via sample, period, and measurement differences where possible.
- Mark research gaps explicitly as "unknown". Do not manufacture conclusions without evidence.
## Output
```
# Literature Review — {topic}
## Position paper (3 lines: what is settled in this field)
## Findings table (claim | replication level | strongest evidence | conflicting?)
## Gaps & limitations (by study design)
## Search log (database · query · included/excluded counts)
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!