awesome-literature-review: narrative review drafting skill

Claude Code skill documented for four-part narrative literature-review drafts, with topic and search-scope alignment before drafting, user checking of the literature list and evidence-level restrictions on claims. The documentation distinguishes narrative review writing from systematic-review screening and meta-analysis.

Workflow level n/a Source Repository-documented Outcome Not empirically evaluated here

Evidence & verification

Source level

Repository-documented
Grounded in a maintainer repository/README. Availability, stars and forks do not establish research benefit or correctness.

Outcome verification

Not empirically evaluated here
A documented resource or intended workflow, not a demonstrated academic outcome. No empirical benefit is established by its inclusion.

Sources checked

2026-10-17 (UTC)

Primary README documentation only; capability descriptions not evaluated outcomes. README opening workflow, evidence rules and scope boundary support every descriptive claim. Output format options are documented but not tested; claims of depth or superior prose are not treated as outcomes.

Source-checked does not mean independently reproduced. See the Method page for how these labels are assigned.

Sources (1)

Research applicability

Getting started

Untested editorial guidance: inspect the documented installation and reference files, define scope and citation style, supply verifiable literature and test a short narrative review before broader use.

Maintenance

Mutable main branch retrieved; no maintenance reliability audit.

License

README licence statement only; no legal audit. Verify applicable terms before reuse.

Workflow & human oversight

Resource-level automation unspecified. The researcher defines the task, controls access and checks sources and outputs.

Workflow level is not an evidence score; higher is not better evidence.

Approach

Limitations

README-only review; no skill execution, citation checking or document-format validation reproduced. Prompt instructions do not guarantee factual compliance. Explicitly not a substitute for systematic-review screening, risk-of-bias evaluation or meta-analysis. Sponsorship acknowledgements are not evidence of research quality.

Reproducibility

No installation, tests or independent outcome reproduction.

Adoption requirements

Compatible skill host, SKILL.md and references directory, accessible source records and researcher oversight are required. Confirm database access rights and document privacy; check cited content rather than trusting draft fluency.

Comments

No comments yet.

Add a comment

Comments are held for moderation before appearing. Critical or corrective comments are welcome — especially evidence that an entry overstates what has been verified.