systematic-review

systematic-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from SkillMedev/academic-researcher. It costs 123 tokens per session (1,750 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A workflow for systematic reviews, which answer a focused research question by finding, assessing, and combining relevant studies using a documented method. It follows PRISMA, a reporting standard for systematic reviews, and uses PICO to define the population, treatment, comparison, and outcome.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to turn a clear PICO question into a registered protocol, database search strategy, study screening process, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE-rated synthesis.
Why use it?
It reduces the risk of choosing studies or judging evidence after seeing the results. It records the search, screening decisions, exclusions, and evidence quality.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to turn a clear PICO question into a registered protocol, database search strategy, study screening process, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE-rated synthesis.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review
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 SkillMedev/academic-researcher --skill systematic-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SkillMedev/academic-researcher

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

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 systematic-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-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 systematic-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skillmedev/academic-researcher/systematic-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 123 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,750 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.
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 $0.00123 $0.01750
Opus 5.5 $0.00049 $0.00700
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00025 $0.00350
Haiku 4.5 $0.00012 $0.00175

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 6f622a0b82b0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

systematic-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 1mo 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/systematic-review/SKILL.md · 106 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Systematic Review

A systematic review answers one focused question by finding, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies with a transparent, reproducible method. The costly failure it prevents is post-hoc bias: deciding what counts as evidence after seeing the results. Every eligibility decision is therefore locked in a protocol before the first search runs, and every excluded study leaves a logged reason. Follow PRISMA 2020 throughout.

Operating procedure

Order is mandatory: the protocol must exist before the search, and the search before screening, or the review is not systematic - it is a literature review wearing a lab coat (route that job to literature-review).

Step 1: Gather inputs and frame the PICO question

Collect from the user before starting:

  • The research question, decomposed into Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome. If it has no clear PICO, refuse and help them write one - a question like "is telehealth good?" cannot be reviewed.
  • Intended study designs (RCTs only? observational too?).
  • Databases available to them (default: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, plus one field-specific database - a minimum of 3).
  • Team size: two independent screeners are required; if the user is solo, flag this as a methodological limitation up front, not in the discussion section.
  • Timeline and whether meta-analysis is intended.

Label any assumed input as a guess and confirm before Step 3.

Step 2: Write and register the protocol

Document eligibility criteria, databases, full search strings, screening process, extraction fields, risk-of-bias tool, and analysis plan. Recommend PROSPERO registration (health topics) or OSF (other fields). Fill this criteria table - every row, every cell, before searching:

INCLUSION / EXCLUSION CRITERIA - [FILL: review title]

Domain         | INCLUDE                              | EXCLUDE (with justification)
---------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------
Population     | [FILL: e.g. adults ≥18 with T2DM]    | [FILL: e.g. type 1, gestational - different pathology]
Intervention   | [FILL: e.g. telehealth coaching ≥8w] | [FILL: e.g. one-off SMS reminders - not coaching]
Comparison     | [FILL: e.g. usual care, waitlist]    | [FILL: e.g. head-to-head telehealth arms]
Outcome        | [FILL: e.g. HbA1c at ≥3 months]      | [FILL: e.g. satisfaction-only studies]
Study design   | [FILL: e.g. RCTs, cluster RCTs]      | [FILL: e.g. case reports, editorials, protocols]
Language       | [FILL - restricting is a limitation] | [FILL]
Setting        | [FILL]                               | [FILL]

Read the full file on GitHub · 106 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. 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 6f622a0b82b0
  2. 2mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A 104282f3996e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

systematic-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository SkillMedev/academic-researcher (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 1,750 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.

Related

systematic-review compared with skills from other repositories

systematic-review next to 6 skills from other repositories
ModTypeStarsLast pushLicenceScanTokensWorks with
systematic-reviewSkillMedev/academic-researcherSkill31mo agoMITA123Claude Code, Codex
experiment-report-skilllyzbcy/experiment-report-skillSkill1310d agoMITA65Claude Code, Codex
causal-inferenceSkillMedev/skillsSkill2424d agoMITA142Claude Code, Codex
clinical-summarySkillMedev/skillsSkill2424d agoMITA131Claude Code, Codex
experiment-trackingSkillMedev/skillsSkill2424d agoMITA128Claude Code, Codex
government-open-dataSkillMedev/skillsSkill2424d agoMITA133Claude Code, Codex
manuscript-drafterMarazii/research-co-pilotSkill145mo agoMITA202Claude Code