literature-review

Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging. Use when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite a body of academic or technical literature.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A well-structured, actionable workflow with concrete templates and a clear eight-step sequence. The main improvements would be tightening the redundant trigger line and making the citation/verification steps into explicit feedback loops.

Suggestions

Remove or compress the body's opening 'Use this skill when...' line since it duplicates the frontmatter description, freeing token budget.

Turn the citation-verification checklist into an explicit validate->fix->retry loop (e.g., 'If a DOI fails to resolve, locate the canonical record and re-verify before citing').

Consider splitting the search-log and extraction-table templates into a referenced file if the skill grows, to preserve the lean overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and assumes Claude's competence — it does not explain what a literature review is or how databases work — but restates the 'Use this skill when...' line already in the description and could be trimmed slightly.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready templates (search-log table with a real PubMed query, extraction table, output template) plus concrete, executable steps, matching the 5-anchor example.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	An 8-step sequence with validation artifacts (exclusion reasons, dedup counts, a dedicated citation-verification step), but the verification steps are checklist items rather than explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loops.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized single-file skill with clear section headers and no nested references; as a self-contained skill it is appropriately structured, though it is longer than the under-50-line simple-skill case that would warrant a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong, well-scoped description that covers concrete actions, natural triggers, and an explicit use-condition with minimal conflict risk. The only minor gap is the absence of common synonyms or file-type triggers.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging' — covering the workflow comprehensively, matching the 5-anchor example.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers 'what' with a concrete action list and 'when' via a clear 'Use when the task is to find, screen, synthesize, and cite...' clause with concrete triggers.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Strong natural coverage ('literature-review', 'academic', 'biomedical', 'technical', 'scientific', 'find, screen, synthesize, and cite'), but missing common synonyms or file-extension variants that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (systematic literature reviews) with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 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
Path: skills/scientific-thinking-literature-review/SKILL.md
Commit: d8409a4

Reviewed: 1 day 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.