literature-search

Systematic literature review methodology including search strategy, screening, and synthesis. Use when conducting literature reviews or writing background sections.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/literature-search/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 lean, well-organized methodology checklist with strong sequencing and PRISMA verification checkpoints, but a portion of the synthesis guidance is descriptive rather than concretely actionable. Tightening the vaguer synthesis steps would make the guidance uniformly executable.

Suggestions

Concretize vague synthesis steps: replace 'Pool quantitative results when studies are sufficiently homogeneous' with explicit homogeneity criteria or a named effect-size pooling method.

Add a short worked example of a Boolean search string (concept OR synonym) AND (concept OR synonym) to make the search-strategy guidance copy-paste ready.

Specify the predefined data-extraction form fields rather than only instructing to 'Extract data systematically using a predefined extraction form'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Tight bullet lists name tools (PICO, PRISMA, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, PRISMA-ScR) without explaining them and contain no conceptual padding, so every token earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	It offers concrete guidance ("Select at least 3 complementary databases", "Use two-pass screening") but mixes in descriptive/vague items like "Organize findings thematically, identify patterns and contradictions" and "Pool quantitative results when studies are sufficiently homogeneous", leaving some guidance incomplete.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The five sections follow a logical search-to-synthesis sequence, and the PRISMA methodology supplies explicit verification checkpoints (record total hits, record dedup count, record excluded count, record excluded with reasons), functioning as a checklist.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and is organized into five clearly headed sections, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score on organization alone.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 cleanly answers both 'what' and 'when' with an explicit Use-when clause, but its trigger terms and action descriptions are somewhat abstract and narrow in coverage. Strengthening concrete verbs and adding common synonyms would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Add concrete action verbs and common synonyms (e.g., "systematic review", "lit review", "PRISMA flow diagram") to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Replace abstract phase labels with specific capabilities (e.g., "design Boolean database searches, screen titles/abstracts, build PRISMA flow diagrams") to improve specificity.

Tighten the 'when' clause to a more distinctive trigger than the generic 'writing background sections' to reduce overlap with general writing skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and three methodological phases ("search strategy, screening, and synthesis"), but these are abstract phase labels rather than the concrete verbs seen in the score-3 anchor, so it sits at the 'names domain and some actions' level.	2 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly states both what it does ("methodology including search strategy, screening, and synthesis") and when to use it ("Use when conducting literature reviews or writing background sections"), matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"literature reviews" and "writing background sections" are natural terms a user might say, but coverage is thin and misses common variations like "systematic review", "lit review", or "PRISMA".	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Systematic literature review methodology" is a recognizable niche, but the "writing background sections" trigger is generic and could overlap with general academic-writing skills, placing it at 'somewhat specific but could still overlap'.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw
Path: .claude/skills/literature-search/SKILL.md
Commit: e2e23c9

Reviewed: 6 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.