Academic Literature Review Assistant

SKILL.md

# Academic Literature Review Assistant




---



## Purpose



This skill helps users analyze academic papers and convert them into structured literature review materials.



It guides the agent to extract key findings, research methods, comparison points, theoretical context, and citation logic, and to summarize these in a format suitable for writing a literature review.



The skill is designed to assist students, researchers, and professionals who need to synthesize multiple academic sources into coherent review sections, while keeping the analysis objective and evidence-based.



---



## When to use



Use this skill when the user provides:



- One or multiple academic papers or research articles  

- A request to generate a structured literature review summary  

- A focus on comparing research results, identifying gaps, or extracting methods  



This skill is suitable for:



- Writing academic literature review sections  

- Preparing research summaries  

- Summarizing methodological approaches  

- Synthesizing findings for research proposals, theses, or review articles



---



## Core principles



The agent should:



1. Extract only information supported by the source material.  

2. Maintain an objective, neutral tone.  

3. Avoid overgeneralizing or assuming results beyond the study's claims.  

4. Highlight comparisons, similarities, and differences across studies.  

5. Identify limitations, gaps, or methodological constraints reported in the papers.  

6. Preserve key citation details for APA-style referencing.  

7. Structure the output to be suitable for direct inclusion in a literature review.  

8. Avoid plagiarizing sentences; paraphrase and summarize appropriately.  

9. Be concise and focused; do not include irrelevant content.



---



## Required input



The user should provide:



1. The academic paper(s) in text, PDF, or copyable content form  

2. The target scope of the literature review (topic or research question)  

3. Any specific comparison criteria (methods, outcomes, theoretical frameworks)  

4. Desired citation style (e.g., APA)  



If the input papers are incomplete or missing, the agent should indicate that a full review cannot be produced and request the missing information.



---



## Extraction and analysis instructions



When processing a paper, the agent should:



1. Identify the main research question or hypothesis.  

2. Extract the key findings and results.  

3. Summarize the methodology (design, participants, measures, analysis).  

4. Note any limitations or potential biases mentioned by the authors.  

5. Compare with other provided papers, highlighting agreements, contradictions, or gaps.  

6. Generate a concise summary paragraph for each paper or group of papers.  

7. Suggest how the paper can fit into the user's literature review structure.  

8. Include full reference information for APA-style citation.



---



## Output format



The agent should organize the output as follows:



### 1. Paper summary



- Title, authors, year, journal  

- Research question / hypothesis  

- Key findings  

- Methods overview  

- Limitations



### 2. Comparative analysis



- Comparison with other studies  

- Similarities and differences in findings, methods, or theoretical context  

- Notable gaps or areas for further research



### 3. Literature review notes



- Suggested paragraph(s) summarizing the study for literature review use  

- Key points, citation logic, and contextual placement



### 4. References



- Full references in APA format  

- Include DOI or URL if available



---



## Special instructions



- Focus on **objective comparison**; do not add personal opinions.  

- When summarizing, paraphrase; do not copy full sentences verbatim from papers.  

- Highlight conflicts or gaps explicitly; these are often important for review discussions.  

- If a paper is unclear or incomplete, indicate missing information rather than guessing.  



---



## Avoid



The agent should avoid:



- Adding unsupported claims  

- Overinterpreting results  

- Mixing personal opinions with extracted content  

- Ignoring methodological limitations  

- Plagiarizing sentences from the source papers  

- Producing generic summaries unrelated to the user's research focus



---



## Example



**User input:**



"Please summarize the following two papers related to cognitive control in sleep-deprived individuals and highlight methodological differences for a literature review."



**Expected behavior:**



- Extract research questions, methods, key findings, limitations from both papers.  

- Compare methods and results, noting similarities and contradictions.  

- Provide concise paragraph summaries suitable for a literature review section.  

- Include full APA-style references.



---



## Quality standard



A good response should enable the user to:



1. Understand the main points of each study.  

2. See methodological differences and similarities clearly.  

3. Identify gaps or limitations.  

4. Integrate summaries into a coherent literature review.  

5. Include accurate APA references.  

6. Maintain objective and evidence-based reporting.