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 muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills --skill literature-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skillsWrote 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/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/literature-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/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/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/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 | $0.00000 | $0.02568 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01284 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00257 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature Review
A literature review is not a summary parade — it is a critical, synthesising argument that demonstrates your command of the existing discourse and carves out the intellectual space your own research will occupy.
Types of Literature Reviews
| Type | Purpose | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative Review | Broad synthesis and critical discussion of a field | Thematic or chronological; author-led |
| Systematic Review | Exhaustive, reproducible survey of all evidence on a question | PRISMA protocol; strict inclusion/exclusion |
| Scoping Review | Map the breadth of a topic; identify gaps | PRISMA-ScR; broader scope than systematic |
| Literature Review Chapter (Dissertation) | Contextualise your own study; establish the gap | Funnel structure: broad → specific |
| Integrative Review | Synthesise diverse methodologies | Theory-building focus |
| Critical Review | Evaluate quality and contribution of a body of work | Argumentative; includes critique of methods |
Narrative Literature Review — Structure
The Funnel Model (Standard Dissertation Chapter)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Broad theoretical context │ (What does the field broadly know?)
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Key themes and debates │ (What are the major arguments?)
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Specific studies relevant to you │ (What evidence exists closest to your topic?)
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Research gap │ (What is still unknown or contested?)
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
│ Your study's positioning │ (How does your study address this gap?)
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Thematic Organisation (Preferred over Chronological)
Organise sources by theme/concept, not by author or publication date:
- Group sources that agree with each other
- Group sources that disagree or complicate each other
- Each theme = one section with its own mini-argument
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 233 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6b89e639c040
literature-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,568 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thesis-control
Use when AI-assisted thesis or manuscript edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of intended use, experiment-role promotion, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides author-intent control, lightweight or strict contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
argument-governance
Build and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map…
manuscript-reframe
Reframe report-like academic drafts into paper-form scientific arguments while preserving or explicitly renegotiating author intent; requires an approved old-versus-proposed spine, evidence and argument baselines, analysis-role control, and post-edit drift review.
audit
Check thesis chapters for consistency before submission — contradictory numbers, terminology drift, and broken cross-references.
self-review
Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls and, when needed, an unfamiliar-reader comprehension gate. Use for internal review, readiness checks, reviewer simulation, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory and unstated…
evidence-review
Build evidence-controlled literature reviews and gap maps with source-status labels, claim registers, citation-role plans, traceability tables, and overclaim audits. Use when drafting or auditing review papers, thesis literature reviews, scoping reviews, or evidence syntheses where adjacent-domain evidence, candidate…