Produces a thematic literature review that organizes a field into an argument - consensus, disputes, evidence quality, and the open gap the reader should care about. Use when someone asks "write my related-work section", "review the literature on X", "what does the research say about X", or "organize these papers into themes". Do NOT use for an exhaustive, protocol-registered review with formal inclusion criteria and risk-of-bias appraisal - use systematic-review instead. Do NOT use for synthesizing interviews or mixed non-academic sources into decision themes - use research-synthesis instead.
Click to play with sound.
---
name: Literature Review
description: Produces a thematic literature review that organizes a field into an argument - consensus, disputes, evidence quality, and the open gap the reader should care about. Use when someone asks "write my related-work section", "review the literature on X", "what does the research say about X", or "organize these papers into themes". Do NOT use for an exhaustive, protocol-registered review with formal inclusion criteria and risk-of-bias appraisal - use systematic-review instead. Do NOT use for synthesizing interviews or mixed non-academic sources into decision themes - use research-synthesis instead.
---
# Literature Review
A literature review is an argument about the state of knowledge, not a list of summaries. The failure it prevents is the annotated bibliography in disguise - one paragraph per paper, no comparison, no position - which readers skip and reviewers reject because it demonstrates reading, not understanding. Every section must compare works against each other and end somewhere: a consensus, a live dispute, or a gap.
## Operating procedure
### Step 1: Gather inputs
Collect before writing:
- The guiding question or claim the review serves (a thesis chapter, a paper's related-work section, a research proposal, a decision memo). Default framing if none given: "What is known, what is contested, and what is missing about X?"
- The corpus: papers supplied, or search scope (fields, venues, timeframe) if collection is part of the job.
- Audience and length target (a related-work section runs 800-1,500 words; a standalone review 3,000+).
- Inclusion posture: representative coverage is the default; if the user says "every study, defensibly complete," stop and route to systematic-review - that job needs a protocol.
Label assumed scope as a guess and confirm.
### Step 2: Scope and collect
Define the question, rough inclusion criteria, and timeframe. Prioritize two classes of work: seminal papers (highly cited, field-defining - the ones later work argues with) and recent work (the current frontier). A review citing only old classics is stale; only recent preprints, rootless. Snowball: mine reference lists of the 3-5 most central papers backward, and their citing papers forward.… install to load the full skill