scientify-write-review-paper
Write literature reviews and survey papers from collected papers
Best use case
scientify-write-review-paper is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Write literature reviews and survey papers from collected papers
Teams using scientify-write-review-paper should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/scientify-write-review-paper/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How scientify-write-review-paper Compares
| Feature / Agent | scientify-write-review-paper | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Write literature reviews and survey papers from collected papers
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
SKILL.md Source
# Literature Review Writing
**Don't ask permission. Just do it.**
Guide for writing a structured literature review or survey paper from papers you've already collected. This skill helps with reading strategy, note organization, and academic writing.
**Workspace:** See `../_shared/workspace-spec.md` for directory structure. Outputs go to `$WORKSPACE/review/`.
## Prerequisites
Before starting, ensure you have:
1. Papers collected in `$WORKSPACE/papers/`
2. Ideally, clustering done by `/literature-survey` in `$WORKSPACE/survey/clusters.json`
Check active project:
```bash
cat ~/.openclaw/workspace/projects/.active 2>/dev/null
ls $WORKSPACE/papers/
```
## Phase 1: Reading Strategy
### 1.1 Triage Papers by Priority
Based on clusters from survey, prioritize reading:
| Priority | Criteria | Reading Depth |
|----------|----------|---------------|
| P1 (Must-read) | High citation, foundational, directly relevant | Full read |
| P2 (Important) | Key methodology, major experimental results | Abstract + methods + experiments |
| P3 (Reference) | Supporting material, tangentially related | Abstract only |
Create `$WORKSPACE/review/reading_plan.md`:
```markdown
# Reading Plan
## P1 - Must-read (Full read)
- [ ] [paper_id]: [title] - [reason]
- [ ] ...
## P2 - Important (Selective read)
- [ ] ...
## P3 - Reference (Skim)
- [ ] ...
```
### 1.2 Reading Notes Template
For each paper, create `$WORKSPACE/review/notes/{paper_id}.md` using template in `references/note-template.md`.
## Phase 2: Synthesis & Organization
### 2.1 Build Comparison Table
Create `$WORKSPACE/review/comparison.md`:
```markdown
# Method Comparison
| Paper | Year | Category | Key Innovation | Dataset | Metric | Result |
|-------|------|----------|----------------|---------|--------|--------|
| [A] | 2023 | Data-driven | ... | ... | RMSE | 0.05 |
| [B] | 2022 | Hybrid | ... | ... | RMSE | 0.08 |
```
### 2.2 Timeline Analysis
Create `$WORKSPACE/review/timeline.md`:
```markdown
# Research Timeline
## 2018-2019: Early Exploration
- [Paper A]: First proposal of method X
- [Paper B]: Introduction of technique Y
## 2020-2021: Method Maturation
- [Paper C]: Proposed SOTA method
- ...
## 2022-2023: New Trends
- [Paper D]: Began addressing problem Z
- ...
## Key Milestones
1. [Year]: [Event/Paper] - [Significance]
```
### 2.3 Taxonomy Design
Create `$WORKSPACE/review/taxonomy.md`:
```markdown
# Taxonomy of Approaches
## Dimension 1: Method Type
- Data-driven
- Statistical (e.g., GPR, SVM)
- Deep Learning
- CNN-based
- RNN/LSTM-based
- Transformer-based
- Hybrid
- Model-based
- Electrochemical
- Equivalent Circuit
## Dimension 2: Data Source
- Laboratory Data
- Real-world Driving Data
- Synthetic Data
## Dimension 3: Prediction Horizon
- Short-term (< 100 cycles)
- Medium-term (100-500 cycles)
- Long-term (> 500 cycles)
```
## Phase 3: Writing Structure
### 3.1 Survey Paper Template
Create `$WORKSPACE/review/draft.md` using template in `references/survey-template.md`.
Key sections: Abstract -> Introduction -> Background -> Taxonomy -> Comparison -> Datasets -> Future Directions -> Conclusion
### 3.2 Thesis Literature Review Template
For a thesis chapter:
```markdown
# Chapter 2: Literature Review
## 2.1 Introduction
## 2.2 [Topic Area 1]
## 2.3 [Topic Area 2]
## 2.4 Summary and Research Gaps
```
## Phase 4: Writing Tips
### Citation Density Guidelines
| Section | Citation Density |
|---------|------------------|
| Abstract | 0 citations |
| Introduction | 10-20 citations |
| Background | 5-10 citations |
| Main Survey | 50-100+ citations |
| Conclusion | 2-5 citations |
### Transition Phrases
**Introducing similar work:**
- "Similarly, [Author] proposed..."
- "Following this direction, ..."
- "Building upon [X], [Author] extended..."
**Introducing contrasting work:**
- "In contrast, [Author] argued..."
- "However, [Author] took a different approach..."
- "Unlike previous methods, ..."
**Summarizing:**
- "In summary, existing methods can be categorized into..."
- "The key insight from these works is..."
### Common Mistakes to Avoid
1. **List-style writing** - Don't just say "A did X, B did Y, C did Z"
2. **Lack of comparison** - Analyze relationships and differences between methods
3. **Tense confusion** - Use present tense for methods, past tense for results
4. **Over-citing** - Not every sentence needs a citation
5. **Missing important work** - Ensure coverage of foundational works in the field
## Output Files
```
$WORKSPACE/review/
├── reading_plan.md # Reading plan
├── notes/ # Reading notes
│ ├── {paper_id}.md
│ └── ...
├── comparison.md # Comparison table
├── timeline.md # Timeline analysis
├── taxonomy.md # Taxonomy
├── draft.md # Review draft
└── bibliography.bib # References
```
## Commands
- "Help me write a review" -> Full workflow from reading to writing
- "Generate reading plan" -> Create reading_plan.md
- "Compare these papers" -> Generate comparison.md
- "Write review draft" -> Generate draft.md
- "Polish this section" -> Polish specific sectionRelated Skills
elegant-paper-template
Beautiful LaTeX template for working papers and technical reports
conference-paper-template
Templates and formatting guides for major academic conference submissions
paper-polish-guide
Review and polish LaTeX research papers for clarity and style
response-to-reviewers
Write effective point-by-point responses to peer reviewer comments for revisions
research-paper-writer
Guide for writing formal academic papers following IEEE and ACM standards
ml-paper-writing
Write ML/AI research papers targeting NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR venues
literature-review-writing
Structure and write comprehensive literature reviews for any field
papersgpt-zotero-guide
AI plugin for Zotero with ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek support
paper-parse-guide
Deep dual-mode reading of academic papers from PDF or URL sources
review-response-guide
Craft effective point-by-point reviewer response letters
peer-review-guide
Conduct thorough, constructive peer reviews and evaluate research papers
paper-reading-assistant
AI-assisted paper reading, PDF Q&A, and summarization workflows