Skip to content
Agentmart
Submit a tool

literature-review

Synthesise many papers into themes, contradictions, methodological quality and open questions.

Skill by poorvith-mp

IndexedMIT★ 1
Write a review

Chalk Labs

Need help deploying literature-review?

Chalk Labs sets up agents like this inside real teams: connected to your tools, tested on your data, with a human in the loop where it matters.

Book a call

Install

Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.

npx agentmarket install skill/poorvith-mp-literature-review

Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.

Get the weekly diff

The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.

We use your email only for this newsletter. Privacy

About

Synthesise many papers into themes, contradictions, methodological quality and open questions. Use when synthesizing academic fields, thematic clusters, or research gaps.

Use cases: research

No reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work

Permissions

What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md. Checked Oct 25, 2026.

Tools
No tools found
Secrets
None asked for
Install scripts
None found

Network hosts it talks to 1

  • codeload.github.com · found in install command

Files it touches

  • ~/.claude/skills/literature-review

What's inside

Skill name
literature-review
Description
Synthesise many papers into themes, contradictions, methodological quality and open questions. Use when synthesizing academic fields, thematic clusters, or research gaps.
License
MIT
Instructions
82 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub

Files (3)

  • SKILL.md
  • routing.yaml · evals/
  • literature-review.skill

SKILL.md (first lines)

# literature-review

## Core Philosophy
A literature review is not a chronological laundry list of paper summaries. Writing *"Author A found X. Then Author B found Y. Then Author C found Z"* is an annotated bibliography, not a literature review. A true literature review is a **critical synthesis**: it maps the intellectual topography of an academic field. It groups disparate studies into coherent thematic clusters, exposes underlying methodological contradictions, evaluates statistical and experimental validity, identifies scholarly consensus, and highlights the precise research gap that your work fills.

---

## 4-Step Literature Review Synthesis Framework

### Step 1: Systematic Search Strategy & PRISMA Protocols
1. **Search Query Formulation**:
   - Construct boolean search strings using controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms, IEEE keywords):
     - `("large language models" OR "LLMs") AND ("hallucination" OR "factual inconsistency") AND ("retrieval-augmented generation" OR "RAG")`
2. **Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria (PRISMA Flow)**:
   - *Inclusion*: Peer-reviewed conference/journal papers published 2020-2026, empirical benchmark evaluations, sample size $N \ge 100$.
   - *Exclusion*: Non-peer-reviewed blog posts, opinion pieces, non-English publications.

### Step 2: The 5-Column Synthesis Matrix
1. **Cross-Study Comparative Grid**:
   - Never write prose before completing the synthesis matrix:
     - **Column 1**: Citation & Year (e.g. Lewis et al., 2020).
     - **Column 2**: Theoretical Framework / Core Hypothesis.
     - **Column 3**: Methodology & Dataset ($N$, sample characteristics, benchmarks).
     - **Column 4**: Key Empirical Findings.
     - **Column 5**: Methodological Limitations & Research Gap.

### Step 3: Thematic Synthesis & Scholarly Dialectics
1. **Structuring by Thematic Clusters**:
   - Group papers by conceptual approach rather than author name:
     - *Theme 1: Retrieval-Augmented Grounding Approaches*.
     - *Theme 2: Reinforcement Learning from Human/AI Feedback (RLHF/RLAIF)*.
     - *Theme 3: Decoding-Time Factuality Interventions*.
2. **Surfacing Intellectual Contradictions**:
   - Highlight where leading researchers disagree:
     - *"While Zhang et al. (2023) argue that hallucinations stem primarily from out-of-distribution training data, Bender et al. (2021) maintain that the autoregressive objective itself fundamentally precludes factual comprehension."*

### Step 4: Methodological Quality Appraisal & The Gap
1. **Critical Quality Appraisal**:
   - Scrutinize empirical rigor: Were sample sizes adequate? Were control groups utilized? Did the study suffer from p-hacking or publication bias?
2. **The Research Gap Formulation**:
   - Conclude each thematic section by framing what remains unknown:
     - *"Despite widespread adoption of RAG architectures, current literature exhibits a critical gap in multi-hop reasoning over temporal knowledge graphs where historical facts conflict."*

---

## Deliverable Format: Scholarly Synthesis Matrix (LLM Factuality Research)

| Author & Year | Methodology / Model | Benchmark / Sample | Key Empirical Finding | Critical Limitation / Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Lewis et al. (2020)** | Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) + BART generator | Natural Questions, TriviaQA | RAG reduces hallucination rates by 42% compared to parametric-only models on open-domain QA. | Fails on cross-document multi-hop reasoning; assumes static non-conflicting corpora. |
| **Ji et al. (2023)** | Comprehensive Taxonomy Survey | 120+ NLP Papers Reviewed | Formalized hallucinations into intrinsic (conflicting with source) vs extrinsic (unverifiable). | Purely qualitative taxonomy; lacked unified quantitative benchmarking standard. |
| **Mallen et al. (2023)** | Probing QA memorization across model scales | PopQA (14k entities), EntityQuestions | LMs memorize high-popularity facts well but fail catastrophically (<15% accuracy) on long-tail tail entities. | Did not test whether fine-tuning improves long-tail retrieval without forgetting heads. |
| **Gao et al. (2024)** | Modular RAG Architecture Analysis | MultiHop-RAG, HotpotQA | Pre-retrieval routing and post-retrieval reranking improve factual precision by 28%. | Evaluated only synthetic English benchmarks; real-world noisy enterprise data unaddressed. |

---

## Worked Example: Transforming a Disjointed Draft into an Integrated Review

- **Original Fragmented Text**:
  - *"Smith (2021) investigated remote worker burnout and found high fatigue. Jones (2022) studied zoom meetings and found fatigue. Brown (2023) surveyed 500 managers about productivity."*
- **Synthesized Thematic Revision**:
  - *"Recent scholarship on post-pandemic remote organizational dynamics converges on cognitive fatigue as a primary barrier to sustained knowledge worker productivity. While early investigations focused on broad psychological stressors (Smith, 2021), subsequent empirical work isolated synchronous video communication—termed 'Zoom fatigue'—as the specific driver of neurological depletion (Jones, 2022). However, a persistent contradiction emerges in managerial appraisals: despite documented employee exhaustion, large-scale managerial surveys indicate stable or rising net output (Brown, 2023). This paradox suggests current literature conflates subjective worker well-being with immediate transactional output, leaving the long-term attrition costs of digital presenteeism unexamined."*

---

## Verification Checklist

- [ ] Papers organized into coherent conceptual themes rather than sequential author summaries.
- [ ] Synthesis matrix completed before drafting body paragraphs.
- [ ] Methodological strengths and limitations evaluated, not just study conclusions.
- [ ] Conflicting findings and academic debates highlighted and contextualized.
- [ ] Clear research gap articulated that logically motivates future work.

---

## Anti-Patterns

- **The Serial Abstract Dump**: Paraphrasing paper abstracts one after another in chronological order without connective tissue.
- **Uncritical Acceptance of Claims**: Treating authors' self-reported conclusions as objective fact without examining sample size, methodology, or confounders.
- **Missing the "So What?" (The Absent Gap)**: Writing 30 pages summarizing a field without ever concluding what questions remain unsolved.

From poorvith-mp/skills-education, MIT.

More from poorvith-mp/skills-education

Signals

Stars
1
Forks
0
Open issues
0
Last commit (this folder)
Sep 12, 2026 (1 month ago)
Last release
Oct 2, 2026 (1 month ago)

From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).

Details

License
MIT
First seen
Oct 24, 2026
Last checked
Oct 24, 2026

More from poorvith-mp

Done for you

Rather not set it up yourself?

Chalk Labs scopes, builds and runs agents for your team: the task audit, the eval harness, the integrations and the weekly ops report. Fixed scope, priced before we start.

See how we build AI agents →Read the case studies

Chalk Labs is a two-founder AI and growth studio. We build AI agents, CRMs and MVPs for Web3 and AI companies, and have shipped 50+ product and token launches.

launches shipped
50+
launches shipped
media placements
500+
media placements
founders on every account
2
founders on every account

Press we've placed: Forbes · CoinDesk · Decrypt · Cointelegraph · The Block

Rahil Jain, Co-founder, Chalk Labs. Ex-Goldman Sachs engineer. You talk to the person who builds it.

Get literature-review running in your business

Tell us what you want to automate. A founder replies within one working day with a plan, not a pitch deck.

Goes to the Chalk Labs founders, not the newsletter. Privacy

Need help deploying literature-review?

CallGet help
Cite this page

literature-review skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/poorvith-mp-literature-review (last updated 2026-10-24)