research-survey

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Generates structured literature survey reports from collected papers using a multi-stage pipeline: outline generation (query-type adaptive) → draft survey → section-by-section expansion → summary section refinement → final assembly. Produces survey-grade output with taxonomy-based method analysis, LaTeX formalizations, comparative tables, and dense citations. Use when: user wants a literature review, research survey, field overview, or systematic synthesis of multiple papers. Do NOT use for finding/searching papers (use paper-navigator), generating research ideas (use research-ideation), or writing a paper's Related Work section (use paper-writing).

2installs

Sourceevoscientist/evoskills

Added on2026-04-14

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add evoscientist/evoskills research-survey

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Research Survey

Generates high-quality, survey-grade literature reviews from papers collected by

paper-navigator

.

paper-navigator (collect 30-120 papers)
    ↓
Stage 1: Generate Outline (query-type adaptive structure)
    ↓
Stage 2: Draft Survey (outline + top-30 papers)
    ↓
Stage 3: Expand Sections (draft + all papers, section-by-section)
    ↓
Stage 4: Generate Section Summaries
    ↓
Stage 5: Refine Summary Sections (Abstract/Intro/Conclusion)
    ↓
Stage 6: Assemble + References

When to Use

User asks for a "literature review", "survey", "field overview", or "systematic review"
User has collected papers and wants them synthesized into a structured report
User wants to understand the full landscape of a research field

When NOT to Use

Finding papers → use
```
paper-navigator
```
first, then come here
Generating research ideas → use
```
research-ideation
```
Writing a Related Work section for a paper → use
```
paper-writing
```

Dependency: paper-navigator

This skill requires papers as input. If the user hasn't provided papers, first invoke
paper-navigator
(Workflow 1, target 30-120 papers) to collect them.

CRITICAL: All paper discovery MUST use the
paper-navigator
skill and its scripts (scholar_search, citation_traverse, arxiv_monitor, recommend, etc.). Using WebSearch, WebFetch, or any generic web search tool for finding papers is PROHIBITED. Generic web search cannot access Semantic Scholar, citation graphs, or academic recommendation systems. Only

paper-navigator

provides the academic search infrastructure needed for survey-quality literature collection.

Stage 1: Generate Outline

This is a two-phase process. Different fields have different survey conventions — a clinical systematic review looks nothing like a CS methods survey. First generate a domain-appropriate template, then create the detailed outline.

Phase 1A: Generate Domain-Specific Survey Template

Before outlining, identify the field and adapt the structure:

Identify the field from the user's goal and collected papers
Select section names and organization logic using the field-specific conventions in
```
assets/survey-template.md
```
(e.g., medicine organizes by intervention type and follows PRISMA; chemistry organizes by reaction class; social sciences organize by theoretical perspective)
Add field-specific sections (e.g., Risk of Bias Assessment for medicine, Structure-Property Relationships for materials, Ethical Considerations for human-subjects research)
Determine comparison table dimensions appropriate to the field

Phase 1B: Create Detailed Outline

With the domain-specific template as the framework, generate the outline:

Query Type Classification

Type	Example	Structure
A: Single-topic deep dive	"Catalyst design for electrochemical CO2 reduction"	Intro → Problem Definition → Methods (by mechanism/approach) → Evaluation → Challenges → Conclusion
B: Multi-topic parallel	"Drug resistance mechanisms and therapeutic strategies in cancer immunotherapy"	Intro → Topic 1 (definition + methods) → Topic 2 (definition + methods) → Evaluation → Challenges → Conclusion
C: Pipeline/stage-based	"From sample preparation to data analysis in single-cell RNA sequencing"	Chapters organized by workflow stages

Outline Requirements

The outline is NOT a simple heading list — it's a blueprint with meta-instructions for each section. For each

## Section

:

Include
```
[Instruction: ...]
```
specifying what the section must contain
Specify required tables with field-appropriate columns
For main body sections: mandate taxonomy by underlying principle/mechanism, NOT chronology
Include any field-required elements (e.g., PRISMA flowchart for medical systematic reviews, mathematical formalism for physics)

See

references/survey-methodology.md

for full outline generation rules and

assets/survey-template.md

for field-specific conventions.

Stage 2: Draft Survey

Generate a complete draft from the outline using the top-30 most relevant papers.

Use numbered citations [1], [2, 3] throughout
Follow the outline's meta-instructions strictly
Each methods section must build a taxonomy and include comparison tables
Problem definition must include LaTeX formalization (
```
$$...$$
```
)

Stage 3: Expand Sections

Expand each non-summary section using all collected papers (30-120). This is where survey-grade depth is achieved.

Section Expansion Targets

Section Type	Target Length	Focus
Methods	6000+ words per paradigm chapter	Technical narratives, mechanism analysis, comparison tables
Evaluation	3500+ words	Benchmark taxonomy, metric analysis, SOTA summary
Challenges	3000+ words	Problem definition + evidence + opportunity per challenge
Applications	3000+ words	Real-world use cases with specific achievements
Problem Definition	2000+ words	LaTeX formalization, constraints, assumptions
Other	2500+ words	Default

Expansion Rules

Thematic coherence: Keep same themes and narrative flow as draft — don't introduce unrelated topics
Cite comprehensively: Use as many relevant papers from the full collection as possible
Survey-grade depth: Multi-paragraph technical narratives per method family, not shallow bullet points
For each paradigm/method family, include:
- Technical narrative: How it works, theoretical assumptions, nuances between papers
- Critical analysis: Why effective, trade-offs, failure modes
- Comparative analysis table: Method | Core Mechanism | Key Advantage | Limitation | Performance

Stage 4: Generate Section Summaries

After all content sections are expanded, generate a condensed summary for each major section:

Summarize each expanded section in 150-300 words
Preserve the key taxonomy, representative methods, and main trade-offs
Keep citation anchors so later summary sections remain grounded

These section summaries become the shared context for the final abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

Stage 5: Refine Summary Sections

After all content sections are expanded, refine the summary sections (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion):

Use all section summaries as context to rewrite Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion
This ensures summary sections accurately reflect the full survey content

Summary Section Standards

Abstract (300-500 words):

Continuous narrative, NO bullet points or bold labels
Must cover: background → gap → scope → key findings → outlook

Introduction:

Continuous narrative, NO subsections or bullet points
Must cover: research background → why traditional methods fail → method summary → scope & organization

Conclusion:

Summarize findings, state which paradigm is most promising
Respond to user's original research goal
Provide clear "next step" recommendation

Stage 6: Assemble Final Survey

Assemble sections in outline order, then append formatted references:

**1. Title** (Year). _Authors_. *Venue*. Citations: N. [[Link]](url)

Save to

/artifacts/survey-{topic}-{date}.md

.

Core Quality Principles

Build taxonomy, don't enumerate: Cluster papers by technical mechanism, not chronology. This is the defining characteristic of a survey vs. a summary.
Critical insight over description: For EVERY method, analyze WHY it works, WHAT trade-off it makes, WHERE it fails. This separates survey-grade writing from shallow summaries.
Goal-centric filtering: Every piece of information must answer "How does this help achieve the research goal?" Discard information that doesn't serve the goal, even if it's interesting.
Strict terminology fidelity: Use the user's exact technical terms. Do NOT drift to related but different concepts.
Dense citations: Ground ALL claims with numbered citations [X]. Nearly every sentence should reference at least one paper.
Zero vagueness: Replace generic statements with specific method names, dataset names, metric values, and problem descriptions.
Visual structure: Use Markdown tables extensively — paradigm comparison, intra-paradigm method comparison, benchmark tables, metric tables.

Reference Materials

Resource	Location	Purpose
Multi-stage pipeline details	`references/survey-methodology.md`	Full methodology: outline rules, section standards, expansion targets
Section quality checklist	`references/section-quality-checklist.md`	Per-section verification checklist before finalizing
Survey output template	`assets/survey-template.md`	English Markdown template with section structure, table formats, and placeholder guidance

Handoff

From → To	When
`paper-navigator` → here	Papers collected, user wants synthesis
Here → `research-ideation`	Survey reveals research gaps worth pursuing
Here → `paper-writing`	Survey informs Related Work section of a paper
Here → `paper-planning`	Survey provides literature context for story design