Literature Review Sprint

Turn a broad topic, rough idea, or uncertain project direction into a ranked literature map and concrete research implications.

Use this skill when:

a user needs to understand a new field quickly
novelty depends on whether close prior work already exists
a project needs canonical, closest, and recent/concurrent papers before algorithm or experiment design
a paper draft has weak related-work positioning but the goal is still field understanding, not final citation cleanup
an advisor meeting needs a crisp paper map, gap analysis, or next reading plan
early experiments or writing reveal that the project may be in the wrong literature frame

Do not use this skill as a metadata or BibTeX checker. Use

citation-audit

for citation correctness and

citation-coverage-audit

for submission-time missing-reference review.

Pair this skill with:

```
research-project-memory
```
when literature findings should persist as risks, actions, claims, or positioning decisions
```
research-idea-validator
```
before or after the sprint when the result should become a pursue/revise/park/kill decision
```
algorithm-design-planner
```
when the map clarifies the closest baseline and the method now needs specification
```
experiment-design-planner
```
when the map implies required baselines, datasets, metrics, or diagnostics
```
paper-evidence-board
```
when literature risks should be linked to paper claims, sections, figures, and reviewer risks
```
citation-coverage-audit
```
later, after the paper is close to submission

Skill Directory Layout

text

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
└── references/
    ├── memory-writeback.md
    ├── paper-taxonomy.md
    ├── reading-priority.md
    ├── search-protocol.md
    └── synthesis-template.md

Progressive Loading

Always read

references/search-protocol.md

references/paper-taxonomy.md

, and

references/reading-priority.md

Read
```
references/synthesis-template.md
```
before writing the final sprint report.
Read
```
references/memory-writeback.md
```
when a project has
```
memory/
```
, component
```
.agent/
```
folders, or the user asks for cross-session memory.
If the user asks about recent, concurrent, accepted, or current work, verify with current sources through web search, OpenReview, proceedings pages, arXiv, DBLP, Semantic Scholar, ACL Anthology, PMLR, CVF, or user-provided papers.
If web access is unavailable, state that the output is a provisional reading plan and mark unverified papers or gaps explicitly.

Core Principles

Optimize for project decisions, not an exhaustive bibliography.
Separate canonical background, closest competitors, adjacent tools, and recent/concurrent threats.
Treat unknown closest work as a major novelty risk.
Rank papers by decision value: what changes the project if this paper is strong?
Convert literature findings into baselines, ablations, claims to avoid, and writing positions.
Preserve search provenance: where searched, when, which queries, and what was excluded.
Do not overclaim novelty from absence of evidence.
End with a next action that changes the project trajectory.

Step 1 - Define the Sprint Question

Recover:

topic, project idea, paper claim, or draft section
target area and venues, if known
intended contribution type
known seed papers, baselines, datasets, or methods
what decision the sprint must support
time budget: quick scan, focused half-day, full sprint, novelty check, baseline check, or positioning check
project memory IDs such as
```
CLM-###
```
,
```
RSK-###
```
, or
```
ACT-###
```
, if present

Rewrite the sprint question as:

text

For [topic/claim], determine whether [proposed contribution] is novel and important relative to [closest families], and identify [papers/baselines/gaps] that change the next project decision.

If the user only asks for "papers about X", still produce a decision-oriented map.

Step 2 - Build a Search Protocol

Read

references/search-protocol.md

Create:

seed concepts and synonyms
method names and older terminology
venue filters and likely communities
canonical-source search paths
recent/concurrent search paths
backward and forward citation plan
OpenReview or proceedings search plan when venue style matters
stopping criteria

For current literature, record source names and dates. Prefer primary sources over blog posts, slides, or secondhand summaries.

Step 3 - Collect and Classify Candidate Papers

Read

references/paper-taxonomy.md

Classify each candidate into one or more roles:

foundational or canonical
closest prior work
direct competitor
baseline method
benchmark, dataset, or metric source
adjacent method family
theory or analysis source
empirical survey or taxonomy
recent or concurrent threat
negative result or limitation evidence
writing or positioning exemplar

For each important paper, extract a compact card:

text

Paper:
Role:
Core idea:
What it proves or demonstrates:
Relation to our project:
Decision impact:
Read priority:
Verification/source:

Step 4 - Prioritize Reading

Read

references/reading-priority.md

Assign:

```
read-now
```
: can change novelty, baseline selection, method design, or project viability
```
skim
```
: useful for context or framing, unlikely to change the core decision
```
defer
```
: relevant but not needed for this sprint's decision
```
ignore-for-now
```
: out of scope, weakly related, or superseded for current purpose

Every

read-now

paper must have a reason tied to a project decision.

Step 5 - Synthesize the Literature Map

Build:

method-family map
chronology of key ideas
closest-work comparison table
baseline implications
dataset, metric, or protocol implications
theory or assumption implications
open gaps and saturated claims
terminology map for search and writing

Flag:

```
novelty-risk
```
: close work may already cover the idea
```
baseline-risk
```
: a missing baseline would weaken experiments
```
positioning-risk
```
: the project is framed in the wrong community or contribution type
```
evidence-risk
```
: available experiments do not address the field's standard concern
```
scope-risk
```
: the literature is too broad for the current project shape

Step 6 - Convert Findings into Project Decisions

Return concrete implications:

should the idea be pursued, revised, parked, or killed?
what is the closest prior work to beat or distinguish from?
what claim is still defensible?
what claim should be avoided?
what baseline must be implemented or cited?
what experiment, theorem, diagnostic, or analysis becomes mandatory?
what writing frame is likely reviewer-friendly?
what next skill should be used?

If the literature map changes the project direction, route to

research-idea-validator

algorithm-design-planner

before experiments.

Step 7 - Write the Sprint Report

Read

references/synthesis-template.md

If saving to a project and no path is given, use:

text

docs/literature/literature_sprint_YYYY-MM-DD_<short-name>.md

The report must include:

sprint question
search log and limitations
ranked paper map
closest-work risks
method taxonomy
baseline and evaluation implications
project decision implications
next reading or experiment actions
memory update section

Step 8 - Write Back to Project Memory

Read

references/memory-writeback.md

when memory exists.

Update the smallest useful set of entries:

```
memory/decision-log.md
```
: literature-driven project or positioning decisions
```
memory/risk-board.md
```
: closest-work, baseline, evidence, and positioning risks
```
memory/action-board.md
```
: read-now papers, baseline checks, implementation tasks, or writing tasks
```
memory/claim-board.md
```
: claims to keep, revise, narrow, park, or cut
```
memory/evidence-board.md
```
: planned baseline, dataset, metric, theorem, or diagnostic evidence
```
paper/.agent/
```
when related-work or positioning notes affect a draft

Use:

```
verified
```
for facts checked against primary sources
```
user-stated
```
for papers or constraints supplied by the user
```
inferred
```
for risk judgments and positioning implications
```
unverified
```
for search leads not yet checked

Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

search scope and limitations are explicit
papers are ranked by decision impact, not merely listed
closest-work risk is named even if unresolved
recent/concurrent search status is stated
baseline implications are concrete
project claims are adjusted when needed
next skill or next action is unambiguous
memory writeback is performed when the project has memory

literature-review-sprint

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Literature Review Sprint

Skill Directory Layout

Progressive Loading

Core Principles

Step 1 - Define the Sprint Question

Step 2 - Build a Search Protocol

Step 3 - Collect and Classify Candidate Papers

Step 4 - Prioritize Reading

Step 5 - Synthesize the Literature Map

Step 6 - Convert Findings into Project Decisions

Step 7 - Write the Sprint Report

Step 8 - Write Back to Project Memory

Final Sanity Check