conducting-literature-dialogue

conducting-literature-dialogue is a skill for Claude Code from icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers. It costs 30 tokens per session (2,044 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A literature-review method that turns verified sources into a structured scholarly conversation about agreements, disagreements, methods, limitations, and open questions.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to compare at least two documented sources, assign their roles, map competing positions, and identify a supported research gap.
Why use it?
It prevents a review from becoming a chronological list of source summaries and avoids making unsupported originality claims.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the humanities-superpowers plugin — 14 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it to compare at least two documented sources, assign their roles, map competing positions, and identify a supported research gap.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers --skill conducting-literature-dialogue
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install humanities-superpowers, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 14 skills.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for conducting-literature-dialogue

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for conducting-literature-dialogue

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/conducting-literature-dialogue.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 30 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,044 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00030 $0.02044
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.01022
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00409
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00204

Measured 12d ago against content hash dadf4885c16a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

conducting-literature-dialogue 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 12d ago.

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.

skills/conducting-literature-dialogue/SKILL.md · 288 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 288 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Conducting a Literature Dialogue

Purpose

Organize sources around agreements, disagreements, methods, blind spots, and unresolved questions so that the literature review becomes an argument about a scholarly conversation. The skill supports positioning; it does not simulate reading sources that have not been supplied or verified.

Contract

Accepts

  • A bounded research question and scope.
  • SourceRecord entries, bibliographic records, notes, excerpts, or verified summaries.
  • Optional concept-lineage records and provisional claims.

Requires

  • At least two usable sources for comparison.
  • Clear provenance for each source description.
  • Enough source content to identify a claim, method, object, or limitation.

Produces

  • A literature-dialogue map organized by problem or position.
  • Source-role assignments.
  • Agreement, disagreement, and unresolved-question records.
  • A bounded gap statement or a declaration that no gap has yet been established.
  • A literature gate report.

May produce

  • A search-needs list.
  • Competing maps based on method, chronology, concept, or disciplinary tradition.
  • A recommendation to postpone originality claims.

Fails when

  • Sources are represented only by titles or unverified generated summaries.
  • The user asks for a comprehensive review without a search corpus or scope.
  • The proposed gap is merely “few studies exist” without evidence.
  • Disagreement among sources cannot be reconstructed from available material.

Guarantees

  • Every source role will be linked to supplied or verified material.
  • Summary, interpretation, and inference will be distinguished.
  • A gap will not be asserted unless the reviewed scope supports it.

Does not guarantee

  • Exhaustiveness, systematic-review completeness, or originality.
  • That the most important source has been found.
  • That a scholarly disagreement is resolvable.

When to use

Use after the research question and scope are stable enough to guide source selection. Use when a literature review reads as “Scholar A says…, Scholar B says…,” when the manuscript accumulates citations without defining positions, or when the researcher needs to identify where a new argument enters an existing debate.

Read the full file on GitHub · 288 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 12d ago First seen · 288 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A dadf4885c16a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

conducting-literature-dialogue is a skill published in the GitHub repository icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers (16 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,044 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.