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 KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill lit-review-synthesisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/lit-review-synthesis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/lit-review-synthesis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/lit-review-synthesis/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/lit-review-synthesis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/lit-review-synthesis.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 | $0.00096 | $0.00957 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
lit-review-synthesis 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 25d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
A literature review is an argument that ends in the gap. It is not a sequence of "Smith (2023) did X. Jones (2024) did Y." Every paragraph makes a point about the field, and papers appear as evidence for that point. This skill works only from paper-reader notes so that every sentence about a paper is traceable.
Inputs
research/notes/*.md(the notes; refuse to proceed with fewer than five, and say why).research/QUESTION.md(the research question the review must lead to).references.bib(keys must match note front matter).- Target length and the department's expected structure, if any.
Step 1: build the evidence matrix
Read every note and tabulate, in research/evidence-matrix.md:
| key | year | type | setting | method | main finding | limitation | relevance | themes |
|---|
The themes column is filled in Step 2. This table is a thesis artifact in its own right (appendix material) and lets the student see the field at a glance.
Step 2: find the structure
Cluster notes into three to six themes. Good themes are claims about the field, not topic labels: "Rule-based feedback scales but does not transfer across assignments" rather than "Rule-based approaches". Test each theme:
- It has at least two papers.
- Its papers can be compared on some dimension (method, setting, result).
- It moves the argument toward the gap.
Then map the tensions: where do papers disagree, and is the disagreement explained by method, setting, or time? Disagreements are the most valuable paragraphs in a review.
Note methodological patterns across the field (everyone uses dataset D; nobody reports variance; evaluations are all with novices). These become the "limitations of prior work" paragraph and often are the gap.
Step 3: outline
Write the outline as claims, one line per paragraph:
1. Intro: scope of the review and how sources were found (from search-log.md).
2. Theme A claim. Evidence: smith2023, lee2022. Tension: chen2021 finds the opposite, in setting S.
3. ...
N-1. Methodological limitations across the field.
N. The gap, stated as the research question, and what this thesis does about it.
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 72 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A bee3204f374d
lit-review-synthesis is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 957 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-22.
Other skills, from other repositories
analytics-strategy
Design measurement frameworks including event taxonomy, KPI hierarchy, dashboard architecture, attribution models, and analytics implementation strategy. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan analytics, design dashboards, build event taxonomies, define KPIs, set up tracking, or audit existing measurement.…
content-strategy
Develop a content strategy covering editorial positioning, content pillars, formats, calendar, governance, and topical authority planning. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan a content program, define content pillars, build an editorial calendar, structure topic clusters, set up content governance, or align…
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i
Für AGB Rechtswahl Schweizer Recht Rom I: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
haftungsdeckel-fuer-daten-und-modelldienste-pruefen
Bewertet Haftungshöchstbeträge bei Datenverlust, fehlerhaften Modellausgaben und Ausfällen digitaler Dienste anhand konkreter Schadensszenarien. Liefert eine Entscheidungsvorlage mit Risikobeträgen, Ausnahmen und Freigabebedarf.