literature-review

Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

100%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a tight, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with concrete templates and an explicit citation-verification checkpoint, all contained in a cleanly organized single file with no unnecessary padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (review types, PICO, database set, dedup order, screening stages, templates) earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable guidance: the PICO framing, named databases (PubMed, arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Crossref), exact search-string examples, an ordered dedup hierarchy, screening stages with exclusion reasons, and copy-ready table/output templates.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 8-step workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Verify Citations" before finalizing) and record-keeping requirements (duplicate counts, exclusion reasons) that make the review reproducible.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A single self-contained, well-organized file with clearly delimited sections and no bundle files or nested references; the inline templates are integral to the workflow rather than separable reference material, so the well-organized structure earns the top score.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and distinctive, clearly conveying the workflow's stages and domains, but it omits explicit trigger guidance and misses several natural terms users would say when requesting this kind of work.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks for a literature review, systematic review, scoping review, or meta-analysis, or needs to survey and cite academic papers."

Include common natural variations users say, such as "systematic review", "research papers", "meta-analysis", and "cite sources", alongside the existing domain terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging" — across named domains, matching the score-3 anchor for multiple specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does, but the description field lacks a "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains natural terms like "literature-review", "academic", and "biomedical", but omits common variations a user would actually say such as "systematic review", "research papers", "meta-analysis", or "cite", matching the score-2 anchor of relevant keywords missing common variations.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (systematic literature reviews) with domain-specific triggers unlikely to collide with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Commit: 754b8dd

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.