lit-review

lit-review is a skill for Claude Code from pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow. It costs 88 tokens per session (1,148 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured process for finding research papers and combining their findings into a clear literature review. It groups contributions, evidence, methods, disagreements, open questions, and citations.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review research on a topic, question, paper, or phenomenon, identify gaps, and produce BibTeX references.
Why use it?
It reduces the work of searching scattered sources and helps show what is known, disputed, or still missing.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter.

Good fit Use it to review research on a topic, question, paper, or phenomenon, identify gaps, and produce BibTeX references.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review
About the project

claude-code-my-workflow is a forkable setup for using Claude Code to produce and review academic papers, slides, data analyses, and replication packages. Researchers use its agents, skills, rules, hooks, and quality checks to coordinate these tasks and verify their results. The catalogue entries define the reusable workflow components for Claude Code.

pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow · 1,569 stars · on GitHub · psantanna.com

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 pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill lit-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow

Made for: Claude Code.

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 lit-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for lit-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/lit-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 88 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,148 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 $0.00088 $0.01148
Opus 5 $0.00044 $0.00574
Sonnet 5 $0.00018 $0.00230
Haiku 4.5 $0.00009 $0.00115

Measured 10d ago against content hash 7cd12baa0358, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

lit-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 10d 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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

.claude/skills/lit-review/SKILL.md · 123 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Literature Review

Conduct a structured literature search and synthesis on the given topic.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — a topic, paper title, research question, or phenomenon to investigate.


Steps

  1. Parse the topic from $ARGUMENTS. If a specific paper is named, use it as the anchor.

  2. Search for related work using available tools:

    • Check master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/ for uploaded papers
    • Use WebSearch to find recent publications (if available)
    • Use WebFetch to access working paper repositories (if available)
    • Read any existing .bib file for papers already in the project
  3. Organize findings into these categories:

    • Theoretical contributions — models, frameworks, mechanisms
    • Empirical findings — key results, effect sizes, data sources
    • Methodological innovations — new estimators, identification strategies, inference methods
    • Open debates — unresolved disagreements in the literature
  4. Identify gaps and opportunities:

    • What questions remain unanswered?
    • What data or methods could address them?
    • Where do findings conflict?
  5. Extract citations in BibTeX format for all papers discussed.

  6. Save the report to quality_reports/lit_review_[sanitized_topic].md


Output Format

# Literature Review: [Topic]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Query:** [Original query from user]

## Summary

[2-3 paragraph overview of the state of the literature]

## Key Papers

### [Author (Year)] — [Short Title]
- **Main contribution:** [1-2 sentences]
- **Method:** [Identification strategy / data]
- **Key finding:** [Result with effect size if available]
- **Relevance:** [Why it matters for our research]

[Repeat for 5-15 papers, ordered by relevance]

## Thematic Organization

### Theoretical Contributions
[Grouped discussion]

### Empirical Findings
[Grouped discussion with comparison across studies]

### Methodological Innovations
[Methods relevant to the topic]

## Gaps and Opportunities

1. [Gap 1 — what's missing and why it matters]
2. [Gap 2]
3. [Gap 3]

## Suggested Next Steps

- [Concrete actions: papers to read, data to obtain, methods to consider]

## BibTeX Entries

```bibtex
@article{...}

Read the full file on GitHub · 123 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. 10d ago First seen · 123 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A 7cd12baa0358

Subscribe to this mod's changes

lit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (1,569 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 1,148 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories