/cs-litreview

/cs:litreview — Academic Literature Orientation

Command: /cs:litreview <research question>

The cs-litreview persona produces a strategically planned mini literature review as an 8-section .docx research guide.

When to Run

• Starting research on an unfamiliar field
• Writing a paper that needs grounding in current literature
• Mapping the "lay of the land" before committing to a research direction
• Want a curated reading list with key authors + foundational papers + gaps

When NOT to Run (use Consensus directly)

• Looking for ONE specific paper (just search Consensus)
• Quick lookup with no need for synthesis
• Field you already know well and just need a recent papers list

Forcing Intake (3 Questions, One at a Time)

Q	Asks	Default if forcing-choice
Q1	Research question (1-2 sentences, specific)	refuses vague; "AI in medicine" gets pushed back once
Q2	Framework: PICO / SPIDER / Decomposition / Hybrid / You-pick	"you pick" (skill recommends from Q1)
Q3	Tentative depth: Quick (5) / Standard (10) / Deep (20)	re-confirmed at post-Phase-2 checkpoint

What You Get

After Phase 0 intake + Phase 1 recon + Phase 2 framework + interactive checkpoint + Phase 3 searches:

research_guide_<topic>_<date>.docx with 8 sections:

1. Topic Overview — single tight paragraph
2. Start Here — Priority Reading Order — 5-7 hyperlinked papers (best-review → foundational → frontier → gap)
3. How the Field Got Here — chronological narrative + timeline table
4. Sub-area Guides — one per sub-area (4 parts each: synthesis / key papers / search terms / boolean strings)
5. Key Research Groups — top 3-5 authors/groups with representative papers
6. Open Questions & Gaps — methodological / population / conceptual
7. Bibliography — alphabetical, hyperlinked, every inline citation matches
8. Audit Log — search table + counts + detected plan tier

Interactive Checkpoint (Mid-Run)

After Phase 2 (framework selected, sub-areas generated), the skill halts with a forcing-options prompt:

Framework breakdown:
| {Component} | How it maps to your topic | Proposed sub-area |
|---|---|---|
| Population | ... | Sub-area 1: ... |
| Intervention | ... | Sub-area 2: ... |
| Comparison | ... | Sub-area 3: ... |
| Outcome | ... | Sub-area 4: ... |
| Cross-cutting | ... | Sub-area 5: ... |

Confirm depth (plan-tier detected: free / ~10 results per search):
  1. Quick scan (5 searches)
  2. Standard review (10 searches)
  3. Deep dive (20 searches)

Sub-area options:
  - Looks good — proceed
  - Adjust: add sub-area on [X]
  - Adjust: replace [Y] with [Z]
  - Restart with different framework

This is the last cheap moment to correct course before search budget is consumed. Skill refuses to start Phase 3 without explicit user choice.

Discipline (Research-Pack Convention)

• One intake question per turn. Never bundle.
• Sequential Consensus calls. 1 q/sec rate limit. NEVER parallelize.
• Plan-tier detected at first search, reported at checkpoint.
• Halt at checkpoint. No Phase 3 without confirmation.
• Source discipline — cite only THIS session's Consensus results. Training knowledge labeled [Not from Consensus].
• Three-count tracking — searches / unique papers / cited.
• Retry once after 3s — then log. 3 consecutive failures → stop.

Workflow

# Phase 0 intake (Q1-Q3 one at a time)
python ../skills/litreview/scripts/citation_tracker.py --action start --session NAME
python ../skills/litreview/scripts/framework_recommender.py --question "<Q1>"

# Phase 1 recon (1 Consensus search; record sent + received)
# Phase 2 framework + sub-area generation
# CHECKPOINT — wait for user

# Phase 3 searches (sequential, 1 q/sec, budget per tier):
#   5/10/20 searches across sub-areas + review + era-gated + follow-up

# Phase 4 cross-search aggregation + DOCX
python ../skills/litreview/scripts/cross_search_aggregator.py --session NAME
# Generate DOCX via Node.js docx library
python scripts/office/validate.py output.docx

python ../skills/litreview/scripts/citation_tracker.py --action close --session NAME

Trigger Phrases (auto-invoke without /cs:)

• "litreview on [topic]"
• "literature review on [topic]"
• "I'm starting a literature review on X"
• "I'm writing a paper on X"
• "help me research X"
• "I'm doing research on X"
• "can you help me research X"

Do NOT trigger for: single one-off paper searches — that's a plain Consensus search.

Anti-Patterns Rejected

• Parallelizing Consensus calls
• Skipping the interactive checkpoint
• Padding thin results with training knowledge
• Defaulting to non-PICO without justification
• Citing papers in chat that didn't come from Consensus this session
• Hardcoding plan tier instead of detecting
• Skipping era-gated searches in standard/deep budgets
• Skipping cross-search intelligence (repeat-hits, recurring authors)
• Truncating Consensus URLs

Related

• Agent: cs-litreview
• Skill: litreview
• Source spec: megaprompts/09-litreview-megaprompt.md
• Sibling: /cs:pulse (research pack)
• Future siblings: /cs:grants, /cs:patent, /cs:dossier, /cs:syllabus

---

Version: 1.0.0 Source: Path-B direct conversion of megaprompts/09-litreview-megaprompt.md