Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit --skill literature-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkitWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit/literature-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit/literature-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit/literature-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00046 | $0.01132 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00453 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
literature-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature Review Skill
Use this skill when conducting a systematic review, scoping review, or structured literature screening over a Zotero library using zotero-mcp-server (and optionally the AutoAttach Zotero plugin).
Core Principles
- Never screen or delete silently. Always present proposed deduplications or screening decisions in a structured table and wait for the reviewer to confirm before writing tags, notes, or moving items to Trash.
- Exclude standalone attachments from reference counts. Always pass
item_type="-attachment"when counting or screening references so standalone PDFs do not inflate PRISMA totals. - Merge tags, never overwrite them. Use
zotero_add_tagsandzotero_remove_tagsrather thanzotero_update_item, which replaces the entiretagsarray. - Keep the audit trail inside the library. Every excluded study at full-text or abstract screening should receive both a structured tag (e.g.
SCREENING:Excluded) and a child note (zotero_create_note) stating the primary exclusion reason.
Workflow Stages
Stage 1: Library Preparation & Deduplication
- Identify scope: Ask whether the review covers a specific collection (
zotero_list_collections) or the entire library. - Find duplicates: Call
zotero_find_duplicates(withcollection_keyif scoped). - Inspect candidate clusters: For each duplicate cluster, call
zotero_get_item_childrenon its members so you never trash the copy that holds the attached PDF or reading notes. - Propose deduplication table: Show:
- Cluster # and matching evidence (exact DOI, ISBN, or title+author+year)
- Key to Keep (richest metadata + attachments)
- Key(s) to Trash
- Tags/collections to merge onto the kept record
- Apply after confirmation:
- Merge tags via
zotero_add_tagsand collections viazotero_add_items_to_collection. - Trash redundant records via
zotero_delete_items(permanent: false). - Record the count of duplicates removed for the PRISMA flow diagram.
- Merge tags via
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- today First seen · 67 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A a3b11cd2a9f0
literature-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository adolinjonathan-bot/zotero-toolkit (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,132 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-manager
Use this when starting a new research project or managing a complex, multi-step research workflow.
academic-writing
You must use this when producing any research prose — literature reviews, syntheses, analyses, methodology descriptions, discussion sections, abstracts, or any written output intended for an academic audience.
systematic-review
You must use this when conducting PRISMA-standard systematic reviews, protocol development, or Risk of Bias assessment.
hypothesis-testing
You must use this when formulating testable hypotheses, designing experimental controls, or defining falsification criteria.
peer-review
You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.
research-methodology
You must use this when matching research questions to appropriate designs, sampling strategies, or validity controls — or when a research problem is stuck and needs creative reframing (cross-domain analogies, first-principles deconstruction).