Loading...
Loading...
Found 17 Skills
Conduct a systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework with explicit search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and transparent synthesis. Use this skill when the user needs to design a reproducible literature search, apply PRISMA flow documentation, develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, assess study quality, or when they ask 'how do I do a systematic review', 'what is PRISMA', or 'how do I make my literature review reproducible'.
Use when planning, running, auditing, or documenting systematic reviews, scoping reviews, PRISMA-style flows, screening decisions, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, or reproducible literature searches.
You must use this when conducting PRISMA-standard systematic reviews, protocol development, or Risk of Bias assessment.
Select the most appropriate pipeline for a user goal, lock it in `PIPELINE.lock.md`, and route checkpoint questions into `DECISIONS.md`. **Trigger**: pipeline router, choose pipeline, workflow selection, PIPELINE.lock.md, 选择流程. **Use when**: 用户目标/交付物不清晰，需要在 snapshot/survey/tutorial/systematic-review/peer-review 中选一个并设置最小 HITL 问题集。 **Skip if**: pipeline 已锁定（`PIPELINE.lock.md` 存在）且所需问题已回答/签字完成。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 尽量一次性提问；信息不足就写 `DECISIONS.md` 并停下等待。
Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.
Direct REST API access to PubMed. Advanced Boolean/MeSH queries, E-utilities API, batch processing, citation management. For Python workflows, prefer biopython (Bio.Entrez). Use this for direct HTTP/REST work or custom API implementations.
Systematic literature review workflow: scope, search (arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar), screen, extract, synthesize, and identify gaps. Triggers on: "literature review", "survey the literature", "related work", "systematic review", "synthesize the research", "find papers about", "research gap analysis".
Use when "literature review", "research synthesis", "systematic review", "academic search", or asking about "find papers", "cite sources", "research gaps", "meta-analysis", "bibliography"
Use this when the user explicitly requests to "verify/optimize in-text citations of the `{topic}_review.tex` review" or to "run check-review-alignment". Use the host AI's semantic understanding to verify each citation against the literature content one by one. **Only when fatal citation errors are found**, make minimal rewrites to the "sentences containing citations", and reuse the rendering script of `systematic-literature-review` to output PDF/Word (the script does not directly call the LLM API locally). Core principle: **Do not modify for the sake of modifying**. When it is uncertain whether it is a fatal error, keep the original content and issue a warning in the report. ⚠️ Not applicable in the following cases: - The user only wants to generate the main body of a systematic review (should use systematic-literature-review) - The user only wants to add/verify BibTeX entries (should use a dedicated bib management process)
Use when formulating clinical research questions (PICOT framework), evaluating health evidence quality (study design hierarchy, bias assessment, GRADE), prioritizing patient-important outcomes, conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses, creating evidence summaries for guidelines, assessing regulatory evidence, or when user mentions clinical trials, evidence-based medicine, health research methodology, systematic reviews, research protocols, or study quality assessment.
Systematic literature-review workflow for academic, biomedical, technical, and scientific topics, including search planning, source screening, synthesis, citation checks, and evidence logging.
Synthesize evidence into a structured narrative (`output/SYNTHESIS.md`) grounded in `papers/extraction_table.csv`, including limitations and bias considerations. **Trigger**: synthesis, evidence synthesis, systematic review writing, 综合写作, SYNTHESIS.md. **Use when**: systematic review 完成 screening+extraction（含 bias 评估）后进入写作阶段（C4）。 **Skip if**: 还没有 `papers/extraction_table.csv`（或 protocol/screening 尚未完成）。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 以 extraction table 为证据底座；明确局限性与偏倚；不要在无数据支撑时扩写结论。