literature-reviewlisted

# Literature Review ## Core Rule Synthesize only what is in the library. **Never invent a citation, author, year, finding, or quantity.** A literature review's deadliest failure is the model confidently asserting "prior work shows X \cite{plausible2021}" for a paper that does not exist. This skill works your `references.bib` + `sources/` (+ `vault/` if present) and nothing else. For what the library lacks, it emits **search directions** — what to look for — never a fabricated source to fill the hole. ## When to Use Invoke with `/literature-review` when: - Drafting or revising the Related Work / Background section - Grounding the Introduction's gap claim in real prior work - Positioning your contribution against the field before submission - Checking whether your library actually covers the themes your argument needs ## Process ### Phase 1 — Inventory the library Before synthesizing anything, take stock: - Count `references.bib` entries; note which have full text or notes in `sources/` (or a summary in `vault/`). - Flag **metadata-only** entries — you have the citation but not the content. You may cite their existence but must not assert specific findings without the source. - Report coverage: `N references / M with readable source / K metadata-only`. If the library is thin for the argument at hand, **say so** — do not paper over it with invented work. A 4-source "review" is a 4-source review. ### Phase 2 — Cluster thematically A literature review is an *argument*,