justin/pm-claude-skills

Files

T

mohitagw15856 036511ab3e Windsurf + Aider targets, MCP server, and demo placement (#33 )

Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing
the multi-platform story.

Windsurf + Aider:
- build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules,
  trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`).
  Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider).
- install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider ->
  .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies.
- One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity.

MCP server (new content type):
- mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills,
  search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp).
  Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents
  client config.

Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF;
recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports +
install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated.


Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-06-17 23:15:38 +01:00

3.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

trigger, description

trigger	description
model_decision	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.

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]"