Write comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research. Use when writing survey papers, systematic reviews, or literature analyses on topics like segmentation, detection, classification in CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, or pathology imaging. Triggers on requests f...
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Write comprehensive literature reviews following a systematic 7-phase workflow.
Initialize project with three core files:
CLAUDE.md - Writing guidelines and terminologyIMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md - Staged execution planmanuscript_draft.md - Main manuscriptFollow the 7-phase workflow (see references/WORKFLOW.md)
Use domain-specific templates (see references/DOMAINS.md)
Topic sentence (main claim)
→ Supporting evidence (citations + data)
→ Analysis (critical evaluation)
→ Transition to next paragraphUse multi-source strategy for comprehensive coverage:
| Source | Best For | Tools |
|---|---|---|
| ArXiv | Latest DL methods, preprints | search_papers, read_paper |
| PubMed | Clinical validation, peer-reviewed | pubmed_search_articles |
| Zotero | Existing library, organized refs | zotero_search_items |
For MCP configuration details, see references/MCP_SETUP.md.
# [Title]: State of the Art and Future Directions
## Key Points
- [3-5 bullets summarizing main findings]
## Abstract
## 1. Introduction
### 1.1 Clinical Background
### 1.2 Technical Challenges
### 1.3 Scope and Contributions
## 2. Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
### 2.1 Public Datasets (Table 1)
### 2.2 Evaluation Metrics
## 3. Deep Learning Methods
### 3.1 [Category 1]
### 3.2 [Category 2]
(Table 2: Method Comparison)
## 4. Downstream Applications
## 5. Commercial Products & Clinical Translation (Table 3)
## 6. Discussion
### 6.1 Current Limitations
### 6.2 Future Directions
## 7. Conclusion
## Input Validation
This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of `medical-imaging-review` and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.
Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:
> `medical-imaging-review` only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.
## References### 3.X [Method Category]
[1-2 paragraph introduction with motivation]
**[Method Name]:** [Author] et al. [ref] proposed [method], which [innovation]:
- [Key component 1]
- [Key component 2]
Achieves Dice of X.XX on [dataset].
**Limitations:** Despite advantages, [category] methods face:
(1) [limit 1]; (2) [limit 2].# Data citation
"...achieved Dice of 0.89 [23]"
# Method citation
"Gu et al. [45] proposed..."
# Multi-citation
"Several studies demonstrated... [12, 15, 23]"
# Comparative
"While [12] focused on..., [15] addressed..."| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| references/WORKFLOW.md | Detailed 7-phase workflow |
| references/TEMPLATES.md | CLAUDE.md and IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md templates |
| references/DOMAINS.md | Domain-specific method categories |
| references/MCP_SETUP.md | MCP server configuration |
| references/QUALITY_CHECKLIST.md | Pre-submission quality checklist |
63c61d3
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.