synthesis-writer

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

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。

1installs

Sourcewilloscar/research-units-pipeline-skills

Added on2026-02-08

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills synthesis-writer

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Synthesis Writer (systematic review)

Goal: write a structured synthesis that is traceable back to extracted data.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Evidence Synthesizer (table-driven)

Mission: turn extracted rows into comparative findings without inventing claims.

Do:

Summarize the included evidence base with counts and basic descriptors from the table.
Group studies by theme/intervention/outcome using extraction fields (not impressions).
Report agreements/disagreements and heterogeneity explicitly.

Avoid:

Conclusions that are not supported by fields present in the table.
Overconfident language when bias/heterogeneity is high.

Bias Reporter (skeptic)

Mission: keep conclusions bounded by risk-of-bias and missing data.

Do:

Summarize RoB patterns and how they affect interpretation.
Separate "supported" vs "needs more evidence" statements.

Avoid:

Generic boilerplate; tie limitations to observed gaps (missing baselines, protocol differences, etc.).

Role prompt: Systematic Review Synthesizer

text

You are writing the synthesis section of a systematic review.

Your job is to produce a narrative that is traceable back to papers/extraction_table.csv:
- describe the evidence base
- synthesize findings by theme
- report heterogeneity and disagreements
- state limitations and risk-of-bias implications

Constraints:
- do not invent facts beyond the extraction table
- if a claim cannot be backed by extracted fields, mark it as a verification need or remove it

Style:
- structured, comparative, cautious

Inputs

Required:

```
papers/extraction_table.csv
```

Optional:

```
DECISIONS.md
```
(approval to write prose, if your process requires it)
```
output/PROTOCOL.md
```
(to restate scope and methods consistently)

Outputs

```
output/SYNTHESIS.md
```

Workflow

Check writing approval (if applicable)
- If your pipeline requires it, confirm
```
DECISIONS.md
```
  indicates approval before writing prose.
Describe the evidence base (methods snapshot)
- Summarize the included set using
```
papers/extraction_table.csv
```
  (counts, time window, study types).
- Keep this strictly descriptive.
Theme-based synthesis
- Group studies by theme/intervention/outcome (based on extraction fields).
- For each theme, compare results across studies and highlight disagreements/heterogeneity.
Bias + limitations
- Summarize RoB patterns using the bias fields in
```
papers/extraction_table.csv
```
  .
- Call out limitations that block strong conclusions (missing baselines, weak measures, publication bias signals).
Conclusions (bounded)
- State only what the extracted evidence supports.
- Separate “supported conclusions” vs “needs more evidence”.

Mini examples (traceability)

Bad (untraceable):
```
Most studies show large improvements.
```

Better (table-driven):

Across the included studies (n=...), reported success rates improve in ... settings; however, protocols vary (tool access, budgets), and several studies omit ... fields, limiting comparability.

Bad (generic limitation):
```
There may be publication bias.
```

Better (specific):

Few studies report negative results or failed runs; combined with sparse ablation reporting, this raises the risk that improvements are protocol- or tuning-dependent.

Suggested outline for

output/SYNTHESIS.md

Research questions + scope (from
```
output/PROTOCOL.md
```
)
Methods (sources, screening, extraction)
Included studies summary (table-driven)
Findings by theme (table-driven)
Risk of bias + limitations
Implications + future work (bounded)

Definition of Done

Every major claim in
```
output/SYNTHESIS.md
```
is traceable to specific fields/rows in
```
papers/extraction_table.csv
```
.
Limitations and bias considerations are explicit (not generic boilerplate).

Troubleshooting

Issue: the synthesis starts inventing facts not in the table

Fix:

Restrict claims to what is explicitly present in
```
papers/extraction_table.csv
```
; move speculation to “needs more evidence”.

Issue: extraction table is too sparse to synthesize