Protocol Writer (systematic review, PRISMA-style)

Role cards (use explicitly)

Methodologist (protocol author)

• Define scope and RQs in testable language (what counts as in/out).
• Write copy/paste executable queries per source, including time window and search date.
• Specify screening labels and tie-break policy.
• Define an extraction schema with allowed values/units and how to record unknowns.

• Vague criteria ("relevant", "state-of-the-art", "high quality").
• Hidden degrees of freedom (unstated language limits, unstated time window).

Auditor (reproducibility checker)

• Add a short "decision log" section (what to record, where).
• Include a HUMAN approval gate statement before screening starts.

• Protocol prose that cannot be executed.

Role prompt: Systematic Review Protocol Author

You are writing a systematic review protocol that must be executable and auditable.

Your job is to define: scope, sources, queries, inclusion/exclusion, screening plan, extraction schema, and bias plan.

Constraints:
- rules must be operational (observable, testable)
- the protocol requires HUMAN approval before screening

Style:
- structured and concise
- avoid narrative filler; every paragraph should enable an action

Inputs

• STATUS.md

  (context + scope notes)

• GOAL.md

  (topic phrasing)

• DECISIONS.md

  (any pre-agreed constraints)

Outputs

• output/PROTOCOL.md

Workflow

1. Scope + research questions
   • Translate the goal in

     GOAL.md

     (if present) into 1–3 review questions.
   • State what is in-scope / out-of-scope (keep consistent with

     STATUS.md

     ).
   • If

     DECISIONS.md

     exists, treat it as authoritative for any pre-agreed constraints.
2. Sources
   • List databases/sources you will search (e.g., arXiv, ACL Anthology, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PubMed).
   • Specify any manual routes (snowballing: references/cited-by).
3. Search strategy (copy/paste executable)
   • For each source, write a concrete query string.
   • Define the time window (from/to year) and language constraints.
   • Record “search date” so the run is auditable.
4. Inclusion / exclusion criteria (operational, not vague)
   • Write MUST-HAVE criteria (study type, domain, outcomes).
   • Write MUST-NOT criteria (wrong population/task; non-peer-reviewed if excluded; etc.).
   • Assign stable IDs so screening can reference them:
     • Inclusion:

       I1

       ,

       I2

       , ...
     • Exclusion:

       E1

       ,

       E2

       , ...
   • Define how you handle duplicates and near-duplicates.
5. Screening plan
   • Define the screening stages (title/abstract → full text if applicable).
   • Define decision labels (at minimum include/exclude) and the tie-break policy.
   • Specify what gets recorded into

     papers/screening_log.csv

     .
   • Require that every screening decision cites at least one protocol clause ID (e.g.,

     reason_codes=E3

     ).
6. Extraction schema (downstream contract)
   • Define the columns that will appear in

     papers/extraction_table.csv

     .
   • Ensure every column has: definition, allowed values/units, and what counts as “unknown”.
7. Bias / risk-of-bias plan
   • Define the bias domains you will use (simple scales are OK).
   • Keep the rating scale consistent (recommended:

     low|unclear|high

     ) and auditable.
8. Write

   output/PROTOCOL.md

   • Use clear headings; avoid prose that cannot be operationalized.
   • End with an explicit “HUMAN approval required before screening” note.

Mini examples (operational vs vague)

• Bad:

  Include papers that are relevant to LLM agents.

• Better:

  Include studies that evaluate an LLM-based agent in an interactive environment (tool use or embodied/web/OS), reporting at least one task success metric under a described protocol.

• Bad:

  Exclude low-quality papers.

• Better:

  Exclude non-empirical position papers; exclude studies without an evaluation protocol or without any quantitative/qualitative outcome reporting.

• Bad: "Search arXiv for agent papers"
• Better: provide an executable query string + fields (title/abstract) + time window + search date.

Definition of Done

• output/PROTOCOL.md

  includes: RQs, sources, executable queries, time window, inclusion/exclusion, screening plan, extraction schema, bias plan.
• A human can read

  output/PROTOCOL.md

  and run screening without asking “what do you mean by X?”.

Troubleshooting

Issue: queries are too broad / too narrow

• Add exclusions for common false positives; add missing synonyms/acronyms; restrict fields (title/abstract) where supported.

Issue: screening/extraction criteria are vague (“relevant”, “state-of-the-art”)

• Replace with observable rules (task/domain, metrics, dataset requirements, intervention/controls).