review-paper

Files (5)

• SKILL.md
• macro_skeleton.md · references/
• skill.yml
• check_skeleton.py · tests/
• test_macro_skeleton.sh · tests/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Review-Paper Skill

The review-article counterpart to `write-paper` (original research). For *reviewing* someone
else's review article, use `/peer-review` or `/self-review` (the RV1-RV9 probes) instead.

## Step 0 — Format + spine axis (the structure-determining choice)

1. Confirm **format** with the user: narrative (SANRA) | scoping (PRISMA-ScR + JBI) |
   systematic (PRISMA 2020). This decides the reporting guideline and the registration path.
2. Choose the **spine axis** — the single most consequential decision: organize the body by
   **modality** (e.g. 2D → 3D), by **task** (generation / QA / deployment), or by
   **lifecycle stage**. Every body section then follows this one axis; mixing axes is the
   most common structural failure.
3. Require a **scope statement + non-overlap boundary** against prior/adjacent reviews — this
   pre-empts the reviewer's first question, "why another review on this?" (user-approval
   checkpoint: confirm the boundary with the user before scaffolding).

## Step 1 — Scaffold the macro skeleton for the format

Load `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/macro_skeleton.md` and write the section for the chosen
format to `manuscript.md` in the manuscript directory, with the summary-table stubs (Step 2) and
that section's figure/table legend plan. The structure depends on the format:

- **Narrative** — the 7-part skeleton below.
- **Scoping / systematic** — IMRaD with one Methods and one Results slot per PRISMA-ScR or
  PRISMA 2020 item (the reference lists them by item number). Do not use the 7-part skeleton
  for these: it has no place for eligibility criteria, search, selection, charting/extraction,
  risk of bias or synthesis methods, nor for study-selection results. The thematic body by
  spine axis goes inside Results → synthesis; frontiers and the evaluation-metrics critique go
  inside Discussion.

The narrative 7-part skeleton:

1. **Abstract** — a 4-5 move version (structured for scoping/systematic).
2. **Introduction** — clinical motivation → technology → **scope + non-overlap block
   (required field, all formats)** → "this review…".
3. **Background / technical principles** — tight; cite once, do not re-survey the field.
4. **Thematic body by spine axis** — each section ends with a **summary table** (stub
   generated to match the type, Step 2).
5. **Frontiers / what is advancing.**
6. **Challenges / discussion** — include an **evaluation-metrics critique subsection** (a
   required quality signal: how the field measures itself, and where those metrics mislead).
7. **Conclusion** — measured. A scoping review maps the evidence; it issues no
   recommendation-grade language or clinical recommendations.

Every citekey must resolve to the project's verified `_src/refs.bib` (produced by `/search-lit` →
`/lit-sync` → `/verify-refs`). If a claim needs a reference not yet in the library, leave a
`[@NEW:short-topic]` placeholder and route it to `/search-lit`; never fabricate a DOI, author,
year, or citekey.

## Step 2 — Summary-table stub (matched to type)

- Narrative / scoping: `study | year | [spine-axis value] | method | key finding`.
- Systematic: PRISMA flow + a study-characteristics table + an extraction table.

The stub ships with column headers and one placeholder row. Cells (study, year, metric, finding)
are filled only from sources the user supplies or that are verified; an unknown cell stays a
placeholder.

## Step 3 — Reporting + registration wiring

- **Scoping** → PRISMA-ScR (+ JBI charting) + OSF registration.
- **Narrative** → SANRA (a 6-item appraisal aid, not a reporting checklist — do not
  over-enforce it).
- **Systematic** → PRISMA 2020 (+ PROSPERO registration).
- If `/check-reporting` does not carry the chosen checklist (it bundles PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA
  2020, not SANRA), track a manual gap table and flag it for the user rather than silently
  skipping the item.

## Step 4 — QC hand-off

Run the standard manuscript QC chain, which this skill is designed to feed:

1. `/self-review` — the RV1-RV9 narrative-review probes auto-activate for a review article.
2. `/check-reporting` — PRISMA-ScR or PRISMA 2020 (SANRA via the Step 3 manual table).
3. `/verify-refs` — every citation resolves; 0 FABRICATED / MISMATCH.
4. `/humanize` — AI-pattern density below threshold.
5. `/academic-aio` — discoverability pass (optional).

**Convergence gate** — the draft is not done until: self-review fatal = 0; verify-refs
FABRICATED/MISMATCH = 0; no `[@NEW:...]` placeholder citations remain; humanize density < 2.0.

## Guards

- Proportionate self-citation; declare an intellectual conflict of interest when an author
  has contributed to the area being reviewed.
- Write only inside the manuscript directory.

From Aperivue/medsci-skills, MIT.

More from Aperivue/medsci-skills