What makes Systematic Literature Review notable?

1.8K downloads. Trust evidence available

How should Systematic Literature Review be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

Systematic Literature Review

Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-alig... Skill: Systematic Literature Review Owner: archlab-space Summary: Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-alig... Tags: latest:0.1.3 Version history: v0.1.3 | 2026-05-28T09:45:42.612Z | user Version 0.1.3 v0.1.1 | 2026-05-21T12:52:44.325Z | user Added - Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

1.8k

Updated

Oct 10, 2026

Version

0.1.3

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.8K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/10/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 10, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 10, 2026
Adoption signal: 1.8K downloadsadoption · observed Oct 10, 2026
Latest release: 0.1.3release · observed May 28, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:systematic-literature-review

Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/snapshot"

Documentation

CLAWHUB

46,956 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: systematic-literature-review
description: >
Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to
conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-aligned protocol definition,
search-strategy construction, screened inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, quality appraisal,
and narrative synthesis. Produces a reviewer-ready review packet with PRISMA flow counts.
---

# Systematic Literature Review

You are a research methodologist guiding a single human reviewer through a reproducible systematic literature review. Your job is to keep the process transparent: every inclusion, exclusion, and extracted field must be defensible from the supplied evidence, and every decision must be logged.

**Default reporting standard:** PRISMA 2020 unless the user specifies another (e.g., PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence syntheses).

## Flow

Follow these phases in order. Ask one question at a time when required inputs are missing. Wait for the answer before continuing. Never fabricate a citation, DOI, author name, or extracted result — if it is not in the supplied text, it does not exist for this review.

---

## Phase 1: Protocol & Search

### Step 1: Frame the Review Question

Choose the framework that best fits the question, and fill every slot. Ask the user one question at a time to populate it.

| Framework | Best For | Slots |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **PICO** | Clinical / intervention | Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome |
| **PEO** | Etiology / risk factors | Population, Exposure, Outcome |
| **SPIDER** | Qualitative / mixed methods | Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type |
| **CIMO** | Management / organizational | Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome |

If the user is unsure, propose a framework based on the question type and ask them to confirm before continuing.

### Step 2: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Capture each as a short, testable statement. Examples:

- **Include:** peer-reviewed empirical studies; published 2015–2025; English; adult populations (≥18); randomized or quasi-experimental designs.
- **Exclude:** editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts without full text; non-English; pediatric-only samples; pure modeling or simulation papers.

Each exclusion criterion gets a short **reason code** (e.g., `E1: wrong design`, `E2: wrong population`, `E3: wrong outcome`, `E4: no full text`, `E5: language`). Reason codes will be reused in the screening log.

### Step 3: Define the Search Strategy

Capture, then build:

- Databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL)
- Date range
- Language scope
- Grey-literature scope (Yes / No; if Yes, sources)
- Hand-search / backward-citation / forward-citation plans

Draft a Boolean search string per database, using each platform's field tags. State assumptions explicitly (e.g., "no MeSH explosion u

README.md

# Systematic Literature Review

**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex
**Domain:** Academic Research

## Purpose

Drives a researcher through a PRISMA-aligned systematic literature review. Covers protocol definition, search strategy construction, screening decisions on title/abstract and full text, structured data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis — always recording inclusions, exclusions, and assumptions so the review is reproducible.

## When to Use

- Graduate student or postdoc starting a systematic review or scoping review
- Researcher preparing a PRISMA-compliant methods section for a journal submission
- Evidence synthesis team building an extraction table from a candidate paper set
- Anyone organizing a defensible, transparent review process across many studies

## What It Does

**Phase 1: Protocol & Search**
1. Captures the review question in a structured framework (PICO, PEO, SPIDER, or CIMO) — one question at a time
2. Defines explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases to search, date range, and language scope
3. Drafts a reproducible search string with Boolean operators and field tags

**Phase 2: Screening**
4. Records every screening decision (Include / Exclude / Unclear) with a reason code drawn from the exclusion list
5. Tracks counts at every PRISMA stage: identified, deduplicated, title/abstract screened, full-text assessed, included
6. Flags conflicts (Unclear or contradictory decisions) for the reviewer to resolve before progressing

**Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis**
7. Builds a per-study extraction table aligned to the review question
8. Applies a quality appraisal checklist appropriate to the study designs included
9. Synthesizes results narratively (themes, gaps, contradictions) and produces the PRISMA flow diagram description

## Output

A complete review packet: protocol summary, search strategy, PRISMA flow counts, screening log with reason codes, extraction table, quality appraisal table, narrative synthesis, and a limitations / open-questions section. Ready to drop into a methods chapter or supplementary appendix.

## Safety Notes

The skill never invents study data, citations, DOIs, or author names — every extracted field must trace back to text the user supplied. If a paper's full text is not provided, the skill marks the relevant cells "not assessable from abstract" rather than guessing. Unpublished manuscripts shared during the session are treated as confidential and never reused in examples or external lookups.

## Feedback & Contributions

Found a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome.

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv",
  "slug": "systematic-literature-review",
  "version": "0.1.3",
  "publishedAt": 1779961542612
}

CHANGELOG.md

# Changelog

## [0.1.2] - 2026-05-28
Rewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.

## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21

### Added
- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md

## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-20
Initial release. Three-phase PRISMA-aligned workflow covering protocol and search-strategy definition, reason-coded screening with stage-by-stage counts, and per-study extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis.

skill-card.md

## Description:

Guides researchers through a PRISMA-aligned systematic or scoping literature review, covering protocol definition, search strategy, screening, extraction, appraisal, and narrative synthesis while logging decisions and PRISMA counts.

This skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.

## Publisher:

[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)

### License/Terms of Use:

MIT-0

## Use Case:

Researchers, graduate students, postdocs, and evidence-synthesis teams use this skill to plan and document reproducible systematic or scoping literature reviews, including review framing, search strategy drafting, screening logs, data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis.

### Deployment Geography for Use:

Global

## Known Risks and Mitigations:

Risk: The skill may process unpublished manuscripts, embargoed material, or identifiable participant information supplied by the user.

Mitigation: Use only documents the user is authorized to share and keep unpublished or identifiable materials confidential.

Risk: Example language limits or inclusion criteria could be accepted without considering the review protocol.

Mitigation: Set language scope, eligibility criteria, and reason codes deliberately before screening records.

Risk: Fabricated or unsupported citations, extracted fields, or appraisal judgments would undermine the review.

Mitigation: Require every citation, DOI, extracted value, and quality appraisal judgment to trace to user-supplied evidence; mark missing fields as NR or not assessable.

## Reference(s):

- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/systematic-literature-review)

## Skill Output:

**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]

**Output Format:** [Markdown review packet with structured tables and fenced Boolean search strings]

**Output Parameters:** [1D]

**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Includes protocol summary, search strategies, PRISMA flow counts, screening log, extraction table, quality appraisal table, narrative synthesis, limitations, and notes.]

## Skill Version(s):

0.1.3 (source: server release metadata)

## Ethical Considerations:

Users should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.

Github ReposUpdated 10h agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.