SkillCheck validator, Cursor exports, and per-agent installers (#27)

Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-17 13:38:31 +01:00
parent 6886dc3b48
commit 05b6d799f0
185 changed files with 31012 additions and 19 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+description: "Structure and write a literature review for any research topic. Use when asked to write a literature review, systematic review summary, narrative review, or research background section. Produces a structured review with thematic organisation, critical analysis, and gap identification."
+globs:
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Literature Review Skill
+
+Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.
+
+## Required Inputs
+- **Topic or research question**
+- **Type of review** (narrative / systematic / scoping / integrative / background section)
+- **Sources provided** (paste references, abstracts, or key findings)
+- **Word count target**
+- **Audience** (academic journal / thesis / grant proposal / policy brief)
+- **Time period to cover**
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### 1. Search Strategy Summary (for systematic/scoping reviews)
+**Databases:** [PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, etc.]
+**Search terms:** [Key terms and Boolean combinations]
+**Inclusion criteria:** Study types, population, date range, language
+**Exclusion criteria:** [List]
+**Results:** [n] identified → [n] after deduplication → [n] screened → [n] included
+
+### 2. Literature Review Body
+
+Organised thematically — not chronologically. Each theme = one section.
+
+**Structure per thematic section:**
+
+**[Theme heading]**
+
+[Opening: state what this section covers and what evidence shows overall]
+
+[Evidence synthesis: present what multiple studies found, compare and contrast. Do NOT summarise one paper then the next — synthesise across them: "Three studies found X (Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020; Lee, 2021), while two found Y, with the difference attributable to..."]
+
+[Critical analysis: note methodological strengths and weaknesses — sample sizes, study designs, generalisability, risk of bias]
+
+[Closing: transition to next theme]
+
+### 3. Synthesis Table (systematic/scoping reviews)
+
+| Author, year | Study design | Population | n | Key findings | Quality/Limitations |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+
+### 4. Gap Analysis
+
+**Well-established:** [What literature consistently shows]
+**Contested:** [Areas where evidence is mixed and why]
+**Missing:** [Gaps the field needs to address]
+**How your study addresses the gap:** [If this is for a research proposal]
+
+### 5. Conclusion Paragraph
+[3-5 sentences. Current state of knowledge and what is needed next]
+
+## Critical Analysis Framework
+For each paper: internal validity, external validity, bias types, effect size significance vs clinical significance, funding conflicts.
+
+## Quality Checks
+- [ ] Organised thematically (not as individual paper summaries)
+- [ ] Evidence synthesised across papers (not summarised one by one)
+- [ ] Critical analysis of methodology included for key studies
+- [ ] Gaps identified — what the field still needs
+- [ ] All claims cited
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not summarise papers one by one — evidence must be synthesised thematically across multiple studies, not presented as a sequence of abstracts
+- [ ] Do not omit methodological critique — a literature review that only reports findings without assessing study quality is not a critical review
+- [ ] Do not organise by chronology when thematic organisation is possible — chronological reviews bury the conceptual structure of the field
+- [ ] Do not present contested findings as settled consensus — where evidence is mixed, name both sides and why the evidence diverges
+- [ ] Do not skip the gap analysis — identifying what the field still needs is a core deliverable, not an optional addition
+
+## Example Trigger Phrases
+- "Write a literature review on [topic]"
+- "Synthesise the evidence on [topic] from these papers: [paste]"
+- "Write the background section for my research proposal on [topic]"