literature-review-sprint

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Literature Review Sprint

文献综述冲刺

Purpose

目的

Turn "I need to read more papers" into a bounded, systematic review. This skill follows the handbook's literature review advice: search systematically, prioritize high-quality sources, assess institution/year/venue/impact, summarize key ideas and limitations, and stay current with top conferences and recent papers.

The output is a usable map of the field, not a long undigested bibliography.

将“我需要读更多论文”转化为一场有边界、系统化的综述。本技能遵循手册中的文献综述建议：系统化搜索、优先选择高质量来源、评估机构/年份/会议/影响力、总结核心观点与局限性，以及跟进顶级会议和最新论文。

产出的成果是一份实用的领域图谱，而非冗长且未消化的参考文献列表。

When to Use

使用场景

User is starting a new topic
User wants to verify novelty of an idea
User is writing related work
User has many papers and no structure
User needs a reading plan before an advisor or group meeting

用户开启新研究主题
用户想要验证想法的创新性
用户撰写相关工作部分
用户拥有大量论文但缺乏结构化梳理
用户需要在与导师或小组会议前制定阅读计划

Workflow

工作流程

Stage 1: Define the Review Question

阶段1：明确综述问题

Ask for:

Topic or problem
Target field or venue family
Purpose: novelty check, related work writing, method comparison, dataset search, or general catch-up
Deadline and available reading time
Existing seed papers, if any

Force a narrow review question. "Diffusion models" is too broad; "diffusion policies for robot manipulation under distribution shift" is workable.

询问以下信息：

研究主题或问题
目标领域或会议体系
综述目的：创新性验证、相关工作撰写、方法对比、数据集搜索或领域前沿跟进
截止日期与可用阅读时间
现有种子论文（如有）

要将综述问题限定在狭窄范围内。“Diffusion models”过于宽泛；“diffusion policies for robot manipulation under distribution shift”才是可行的问题。

Stage 2: Build the Search Plan

阶段2：制定搜索计划

Create search queries for:

Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar
arXiv
Top venue proceedings in the field
Hugging Face Papers or similar recent-paper hubs for ML topics
References and citations of 2-3 seed papers

For current topics, prioritize the last 2 years first, then trace backward to canonical papers.

为以下平台创建搜索查询：

Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar
arXiv
领域内顶级会议论文集
针对机器学习主题的Hugging Face Papers或类似最新论文 hub
2-3篇种子论文的参考文献与引用文献

对于前沿主题，优先搜索近2年的论文，再回溯经典文献。

Stage 3: Triage Papers

阶段3：论文筛选

Classify papers into:

```
Core
```
: must read carefully
```
Context
```
: skim for framing or related work
```
Maybe
```
: keep if time remains
```
Reject
```
: irrelevant, low quality, or superseded

Assess each paper using:

Institution or lab
Year
Venue
Citation/impact signal
Method relevance
Evaluation relevance
Clear limitation or gap

将论文分为以下类别：

```
核心
```
：必须仔细阅读
```
背景
```
：略读以了解框架或相关工作
```
备选
```
：时间充裕时阅读
```
排除
```
：无关、低质量或已被替代

通过以下维度评估每篇论文：

所属机构或实验室
发表年份
会议/期刊
引用量/影响力信号
方法相关性
评估相关性
是否存在明确的局限性或研究空白

Stage 4: Extract Notes

阶段4：提取笔记

For each core paper, produce compact notes:

One-sentence contribution
Problem setting
Key method
Dataset/task
Baselines
Main result
Limitation
How it relates to the user's project

Keep notes short enough that they remain searchable.

针对每篇核心论文，生成简洁笔记：

一句话总结核心贡献
问题设定
核心方法
数据集/任务
基线模型
主要结果
局限性
与用户项目的关联

笔记需足够简短，以便于搜索查找。

Stage 5: Synthesize the Map

阶段5：合成领域图谱

Create a field map organized by axes that matter for the topic, such as:

Method families
Dataset/task families
Assumptions
Evaluation metrics
Failure modes
Open gaps

Name 3-5 concrete gaps or tensions. Separate real gaps from "I have not read enough yet."

根据主题相关维度构建领域图谱，例如：

方法体系
数据集/任务体系
假设前提
评估指标
失效模式
研究空白

列出3-5个具体的研究空白或矛盾点。区分真实空白与“我尚未阅读足够文献”的情况。

Stage 6: Produce the Artifact

阶段6：生成成果文件

Save to

~/phd-log/literature/YYYY-MM-DD-[topic].md

markdown

undefined

保存至

~/phd-log/literature/YYYY-MM-DD-[topic].md

。

markdown

undefined

Literature Review Sprint — [Topic]

Review question

[Specific question]

Search plan

Queries:
Venues / sources:
Seed papers:

Queries:
Venues / sources:
Seed papers:

Paper triage

Title	Year	Venue	Category	Why

Title	Year	Venue	Category	Why

Core paper notes

[Paper title]

Contribution:
Setting:
Method:
Evaluation:
Main result:
Limitation:
Relevance:

Contribution:
Setting:
Method:
Evaluation:
Main result:
Limitation:
Relevance:

Field map

Method families:
Evaluation setups:
Common assumptions:
Failure modes:

Method families:
Evaluation setups:
Common assumptions:
Failure modes:

Candidate gaps

[gap + evidence]
[gap + evidence]
[gap + evidence]

[gap + evidence]
[gap + evidence]
[gap + evidence]

Next actions

Tone

语气

Be structured and skeptical. The user should leave with a smaller, clearer reading list and a sense of what matters.

保持结构化与批判性。用户结束后应得到一份更精简、清晰的阅读列表，并明确重点内容。

What Not to Do

禁忌事项

Do not produce generic paper summaries without synthesis.
Do not treat citation count as the only quality signal.
Do not over-prioritize old canonical papers when the user needs current trends.
Do not let the user claim novelty before checking recent top venues and arXiv.

不要生成无整合的通用论文摘要。
不要将引用量作为唯一的质量判断标准。
当用户需要了解前沿趋势时，不要过度优先旧的经典文献。
在未查阅最新顶级会议和arXiv论文前，不要让用户宣称想法具有创新性。