---

name: literature-review description: Produces a thematic literature review that organizes a field into an argument - consensus, disputes, evidence quality, and the open gap the reader should care about. Use when someone asks "write my related-work section", "review the literature on X", "what does the research say about X", or "organize these papers into themes". Do NOT use for an exhaustive, protocol-registered review with formal inclusion criteria and risk-of-bias appraisal - use systematic-review instead. Do NOT use for synthesizing interviews or mixed non-academic sources into decision themes - use research-synthesis instead. metadata: title: "Literature Review"

Literature Review

A literature review is an argument about the state of knowledge, not a list of summaries. The failure it prevents is the annotated bibliography in disguise - one paragraph per paper, no comparison, no position - which readers skip and reviewers reject because it demonstrates reading, not understanding. Every section must compare works against each other and end somewhere: a consensus, a live dispute, or a gap.

Operating procedure

Step 1: Gather inputs

Collect before writing:

• The guiding question or claim the review serves (a thesis chapter, a paper's related-work section, a research proposal, a decision memo). Default framing if none given: "What is known, what is contested, and what is missing about X?"
• The corpus: papers supplied, or search scope (fields, venues, timeframe) if collection is part of the job.
• Audience and length target (a related-work section runs 800-1,500 words; a standalone review 3,000+).
• Inclusion posture: representative coverage is the default; if the user says "every study, defensibly complete," stop and route to systematic-review - that job needs a protocol.

Label assumed scope as a guess and confirm.

Step 2: Scope and collect

Define the question, rough inclusion criteria, and timeframe. Prioritize two classes of work: seminal papers (highly cited, field-defining - the ones later work argues with) and recent work (the current frontier). A review citing only old classics is stale; only recent preprints, rootless. Snowball: mine reference lists of the 3-5 most central papers backward, and their citing papers forward.

Step 3: Extract claims, not summaries

For each work record: the central claim, the method, sample or setting, the key limitation, and which conversation it joins. One or two sentences per field. This table is what makes Step 4 possible - grouping requires comparable atoms.

Step 4: Organize by theme, never by author

Group works by approach, finding, or dispute - not chronologically and not paper-by-paper. A theme is a sentence, not a topic word. Bad theme: "Remote work studies." Good theme: "Remote work raises measured output but weakens team cohesion, with the effect moderated by tenure." Aim for 3-6 themes; more than that means the question is too broad or the themes are actually sub-points.

Step 5: Synthesize within each theme

For every theme, state three things explicitly:

• Consensus: what most credible work agrees on.
• Disputes: where findings conflict, naming both sides and hypothesizing why (different populations, definitions, methods, incentives).
• Evidence quality: weigh by rigor, not volume - three small convenience-sample studies do not outweigh one large well-designed one, and ten papers repeating one original finding is an echo, not ten pieces of evidence. Note methodology and limitations, not just conclusions.

Contrast pair for the synthesis sentence:

Bad: "Smith (2019) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Lee (2022) also studied this topic."

Good: "Field experiments consistently find X (Smith; Lee), but survey-based studies find the opposite (Jones) - plausibly because self-report captures intention rather than behavior, a gap no study has yet tested directly."

Step 6: Find the gap

The gap is the point of the review. State explicitly: questions no work answers, populations or contexts not studied, methods not yet applied, and claims everyone repeats on thin evidence. If the review supports the user's own research, the gap must lead directly to their question - that alignment is the whole rhetorical job of a related-work section.

Step 7: Verify citations

Every cited claim must trace to a real, checkable source. Never fabricate or guess citations; flag anything unverifiable. For formatting and DOI verification of the final reference list, hand off to citation-tracker.

Deliverable

Produce a review containing: thematic sections that compare and contrast works, an explicit consensus/dispute/quality assessment per theme, a synthesis that takes a position on where the field stands, an explicit "gaps and future directions" section, and accurate citations throughout.

Do NOT

• Do NOT summarize one paper after another - that is an annotated bibliography, and it hides the disagreements that make a review useful.
• Do NOT paper over contradictory evidence to tell a tidy story; surfacing conflict is the review's highest-value output.
• Do NOT treat citation count or repetition as truth - popularity is not evidence quality.
• Do NOT report only conclusions; a finding without its method and limitations cannot be weighed.
• Do NOT claim completeness ("all studies show") - a thematic review is representative, not exhaustive; exhaustive claims require systematic-review discipline.

Quality bar

• No section is organized author-by-author; every paragraph compares at least two works.
• Each theme states consensus, disputes, and evidence quality - not just findings.
• The gap section exists and names specific unanswered questions, not "more research is needed."
• Every citation is real and traceable; none invented or approximated.
• A reader finishing the review could state the field's position and its biggest open question in two sentences.