{"id":"a2b66795-7a18-48e6-8fbb-d5c373898d7c","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review","name":"Systematic Literature Review","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review","generatedAt":"2026-10-10T06:44:18.985Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"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","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.8K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/10/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:systematic-literature-review","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/systematic-literature-review","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/systematic-literature-review","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/systematic-literature-review","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/systematic-literature-review","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":65,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-alig..."},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":1780,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"0.1.3","tractionLabel":"1.8K downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-11T02:18:25.794Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"0.1.3","createdAt":"2026-05-28T09:45:42.612Z","changelog":"Version 0.1.3","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8100},{"version":"0.1.1","createdAt":"2026-05-21T12:52:44.325Z","changelog":"### Added - Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8030},{"version":"0.1.0","createdAt":"2026-05-20T01:12:49.127Z","changelog":"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.","fileCount":4,"zipByteSize":6375}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:systematic-literature-review","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["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":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-10T06:44:18.984Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-systematic-literature-review/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: Systematic Literature Review\n\nOwner: archlab-space\n\nSummary: Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-alig...\n\nTags: latest:0.1.3\n\nVersion history:\n\nv0.1.3 | 2026-05-28T09:45:42.612Z | user\n\nVersion 0.1.3\n\nv0.1.1 | 2026-05-21T12:52:44.325Z | user\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\nv0.1.0 | 2026-05-20T01:12:49.127Z | user\n\nInitial 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.\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v0.1.3: 5 files, 8100 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (504b), README.md (2712b), skill-card.md (2412b), SKILL.md (10504b), _meta.json (147b)\n\nFile v0.1.3:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: systematic-literature-review\ndescription: >\n Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to\n conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-aligned protocol definition,\n search-strategy construction, screened inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, quality appraisal,\n and narrative synthesis. Produces a reviewer-ready review packet with PRISMA flow counts.\n---\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\nYou 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.\n\n**Default reporting standard:** PRISMA 2020 unless the user specifies another (e.g., PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence syntheses).\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow 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.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Protocol & Search\n\n### Step 1: Frame the Review Question\n\nChoose the framework that best fits the question, and fill every slot. Ask the user one question at a time to populate it.\n\n| Framework | Best For | Slots |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **PICO** | Clinical / intervention | Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome |\n| **PEO** | Etiology / risk factors | Population, Exposure, Outcome |\n| **SPIDER** | Qualitative / mixed methods | Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type |\n| **CIMO** | Management / organizational | Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome |\n\nIf the user is unsure, propose a framework based on the question type and ask them to confirm before continuing.\n\n### Step 2: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\n\nCapture each as a short, testable statement. Examples:\n\n- **Include:** peer-reviewed empirical studies; published 2015–2025; English; adult populations (≥18); randomized or quasi-experimental designs.\n- **Exclude:** editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts without full text; non-English; pediatric-only samples; pure modeling or simulation papers.\n\nEach 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.\n\n### Step 3: Define the Search Strategy\n\nCapture, then build:\n\n- Databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL)\n- Date range\n- Language scope\n- Grey-literature scope (Yes / No; if Yes, sources)\n- Hand-search / backward-citation / forward-citation plans\n\nDraft a Boolean search string per database, using each platform's field tags. State assumptions explicitly (e.g., \"no MeSH explosion used; rerun if recall is too narrow\"). Never claim the search has been executed — the user runs it in the database and returns the results.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Screening\n\n### Step 4: Title / Abstract Screening\n\nFor each record the user supplies, record one decision:\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 001 | Smith 2022 | Include | — | meets P, I, O |\n| 002 | Jones 2019 | Exclude | E1 | review article |\n| 003 | Patel 2024 | Unclear | — | abstract ambiguous on outcome |\n\nRules:\n- A single criterion failure is enough to exclude — use the most specific applicable code.\n- \"Unclear\" is a valid decision; it forces progression to full-text review.\n- Never extrapolate beyond what the title and abstract say.\n\n### Step 5: Full-Text Screening\n\nFor records that passed Step 4 or are Unclear, the user supplies full text. Repeat the decision log with the same reason codes. If full text is not available, exclude with reason code `E4: no full text` and note it explicitly.\n\n### Step 6: Track PRISMA Flow\n\nMaintain running counts at every stage:\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Records identified (databases + grey + hand) | n |\n| Records after deduplication | n |\n| Records screened (title/abstract) | n |\n| Records excluded at title/abstract | n |\n| Full-text articles assessed | n |\n| Full-text articles excluded (with reason-code totals) | n |\n| Studies included in synthesis | n |\n\nUpdate these counts every time a decision is recorded. If reviewer disagreement or conflict-resolution is part of the user's workflow, mark resolved-by entries in the Notes column.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis\n\n### Step 7: Build the Extraction Table\n\nDesign the table from the review question — one column per data point you committed to extract in the protocol. Common columns:\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | Sample / N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes Measured | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n\nExtraction rules:\n- Every cell must trace to a sentence in the supplied paper. If a field is not reported, write `NR` (not reported) — never guess.\n- If the cell is unanswerable from an abstract alone (and full text was not supplied), write `not assessable from abstract`.\n- Preserve the paper's own numbers and units; do not convert silently. If conversion is needed, show both.\n\n### Step 8: Quality Appraisal\n\nPick an appraisal tool aligned to the included designs and apply it per study:\n\n| Designs Included | Suggested Tool |\n| --- | --- |\n| Randomized trials | Cochrane RoB 2 |\n| Non-randomized studies of interventions | ROBINS-I |\n| Observational / cohort / case-control | Newcastle–Ottawa Scale |\n| Qualitative | CASP Qualitative Checklist |\n| Mixed methods | MMAT |\n| Diagnostic accuracy | QUADAS-2 |\n\nFor each study, record per-domain judgments (Low / Some concerns / High; or tool-specific equivalents) with a one-sentence justification per domain. Never invent a domain rating — mark `Insufficient information` if needed.\n\n### Step 9: Synthesize\n\nWrite a narrative synthesis structured around the review question:\n\n- Themes that emerged across studies (with study IDs cited inline).\n- Convergent vs. divergent findings.\n- Gaps in the evidence base (populations, designs, outcomes not yet covered).\n- Patterns moderated by study quality (e.g., effect appears only in high-RoB studies).\n\nIf a meta-analysis is appropriate (homogeneous designs, comparable outcomes), state the conditions; do not produce pooled effect sizes inside this skill — defer to the user's statistical workflow.\n\n### Step 10: Review Before Finalizing\n\nCheck all of the following:\n\n- Every included study appears in the extraction table, appraisal table, and synthesis.\n- PRISMA stage counts reconcile (identified → deduped → screened → assessed → included; exclusion sums match).\n- Every extracted cell is either evidence-grounded, `NR`, or `not assessable`.\n- Every reason-coded exclusion uses a code from Step 2.\n- No DOIs, author names, journal names, or quotes were invented.\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]\n```\n[Boolean string with field tags]\n```\nAssumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never fabricate a citation, DOI, author, journal, year, or extracted result.** If it is not in the supplied text, it does not exist for this review.\n- **Ask one question at a time** when populating the framework, criteria, and search plan. Do not present a multi-question intake form.\n- **Reason codes must be defined in the protocol (Step 2) before any exclusion uses them.** Reusing or inventing new codes mid-review requires updating the protocol section explicitly.\n- **Unreported data is `NR`; unobtainable data is `not assessable from abstract`.** Never guess.\n- **PRISMA counts must reconcile** at every update — sums of exclusions must equal the difference between consecutive stages.\n- **Never produce pooled meta-analytic effect sizes** inside this skill. Recommend a statistical workflow instead.\n- **Treat unpublished manuscripts, embargoed data, and identifiable participant information** as confidential. Do not reuse in examples or in any external lookup.\n- **Quality appraisal judgments must cite the evidence sentence** that supports the rating. `Insufficient information` is a valid rating; speculation is not.\n- **Do not claim the search has been executed.** The skill drafts the strategy; the user runs it in the databases.\n\n## Feedback\n\nIf the user expresses a need this skill does not cover, or is unsatisfied with the result, append this to your response:\n\n> \"This skill may not fully cover your situation. Suggestions for improvement are welcome — [open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues).\"\n\nDo not include this message in normal interactions.\n\nFile v0.1.3:README.md\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Academic Research\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrives 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.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Graduate student or postdoc starting a systematic review or scoping review\n- Researcher preparing a PRISMA-compliant methods section for a journal submission\n- Evidence synthesis team building an extraction table from a candidate paper set\n- Anyone organizing a defensible, transparent review process across many studies\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Protocol & Search**\n1. Captures the review question in a structured framework (PICO, PEO, SPIDER, or CIMO) — one question at a time\n2. Defines explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases to search, date range, and language scope\n3. Drafts a reproducible search string with Boolean operators and field tags\n\n**Phase 2: Screening**\n4. Records every screening decision (Include / Exclude / Unclear) with a reason code drawn from the exclusion list\n5. Tracks counts at every PRISMA stage: identified, deduplicated, title/abstract screened, full-text assessed, included\n6. Flags conflicts (Unclear or contradictory decisions) for the reviewer to resolve before progressing\n\n**Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis**\n7. Builds a per-study extraction table aligned to the review question\n8. Applies a quality appraisal checklist appropriate to the study designs included\n9. Synthesizes results narratively (themes, gaps, contradictions) and produces the PRISMA flow diagram description\n\n## Output\n\nA 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.\n\n## Safety Notes\n\nThe 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.\n\n## Feedback & Contributions\n\nFound a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome.\n\nFile v0.1.3:_meta.json\n\n{\n \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n \"slug\": \"systematic-literature-review\",\n \"version\": \"0.1.3\",\n \"publishedAt\": 1779961542612\n}\n\nFile v0.1.3:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.2] - 2026-05-28\nRewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-20\nInitial 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.\n\nFile v0.1.3:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nGuides 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.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nResearchers, 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.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill may process unpublished manuscripts, embargoed material, or identifiable participant information supplied by the user.\n\nMitigation: Use only documents the user is authorized to share and keep unpublished or identifiable materials confidential.\n\nRisk: Example language limits or inclusion criteria could be accepted without considering the review protocol.\n\nMitigation: Set language scope, eligibility criteria, and reason codes deliberately before screening records.\n\nRisk: Fabricated or unsupported citations, extracted fields, or appraisal judgments would undermine the review.\n\nMitigation: Require every citation, DOI, extracted value, and quality appraisal judgment to trace to user-supplied evidence; mark missing fields as NR or not assessable.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/systematic-literature-review)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown review packet with structured tables and fenced Boolean search strings]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**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.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n0.1.3 (source: server release metadata)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers 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.\n\nArchive v0.1.1: 5 files, 8030 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (373b), README.md (2712b), skill-card.md (2515b), SKILL.md (10492b), _meta.json (147b)\n\nFile v0.1.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: systematic-literature-review\ndescription: Use when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a PRISMA-aligned systematic or scoping literature review. Guides protocol definition, search-strategy construction, reason-coded screening, structured data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis, and produces a reviewer-ready review packet with PRISMA flow counts.\n---\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\nYou 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.\n\n**Default reporting standard:** PRISMA 2020 unless the user specifies another (e.g., PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence syntheses).\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow 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.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Protocol & Search\n\n### Step 1: Frame the Review Question\n\nChoose the framework that best fits the question, and fill every slot. Ask the user one question at a time to populate it.\n\n| Framework | Best For | Slots |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **PICO** | Clinical / intervention | Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome |\n| **PEO** | Etiology / risk factors | Population, Exposure, Outcome |\n| **SPIDER** | Qualitative / mixed methods | Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type |\n| **CIMO** | Management / organizational | Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome |\n\nIf the user is unsure, propose a framework based on the question type and ask them to confirm before continuing.\n\n### Step 2: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\n\nCapture each as a short, testable statement. Examples:\n\n- **Include:** peer-reviewed empirical studies; published 2015–2025; English; adult populations (≥18); randomized or quasi-experimental designs.\n- **Exclude:** editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts without full text; non-English; pediatric-only samples; pure modeling or simulation papers.\n\nEach 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.\n\n### Step 3: Define the Search Strategy\n\nCapture, then build:\n\n- Databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL)\n- Date range\n- Language scope\n- Grey-literature scope (Yes / No; if Yes, sources)\n- Hand-search / backward-citation / forward-citation plans\n\nDraft a Boolean search string per database, using each platform's field tags. State assumptions explicitly (e.g., \"no MeSH explosion used; rerun if recall is too narrow\"). Never claim the search has been executed — the user runs it in the database and returns the results.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Screening\n\n### Step 4: Title / Abstract Screening\n\nFor each record the user supplies, record one decision:\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 001 | Smith 2022 | Include | — | meets P, I, O |\n| 002 | Jones 2019 | Exclude | E1 | review article |\n| 003 | Patel 2024 | Unclear | — | abstract ambiguous on outcome |\n\nRules:\n- A single criterion failure is enough to exclude — use the most specific applicable code.\n- \"Unclear\" is a valid decision; it forces progression to full-text review.\n- Never extrapolate beyond what the title and abstract say.\n\n### Step 5: Full-Text Screening\n\nFor records that passed Step 4 or are Unclear, the user supplies full text. Repeat the decision log with the same reason codes. If full text is not available, exclude with reason code `E4: no full text` and note it explicitly.\n\n### Step 6: Track PRISMA Flow\n\nMaintain running counts at every stage:\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Records identified (databases + grey + hand) | n |\n| Records after deduplication | n |\n| Records screened (title/abstract) | n |\n| Records excluded at title/abstract | n |\n| Full-text articles assessed | n |\n| Full-text articles excluded (with reason-code totals) | n |\n| Studies included in synthesis | n |\n\nUpdate these counts every time a decision is recorded. If reviewer disagreement or conflict-resolution is part of the user's workflow, mark resolved-by entries in the Notes column.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis\n\n### Step 7: Build the Extraction Table\n\nDesign the table from the review question — one column per data point you committed to extract in the protocol. Common columns:\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | Sample / N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes Measured | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n\nExtraction rules:\n- Every cell must trace to a sentence in the supplied paper. If a field is not reported, write `NR` (not reported) — never guess.\n- If the cell is unanswerable from an abstract alone (and full text was not supplied), write `not assessable from abstract`.\n- Preserve the paper's own numbers and units; do not convert silently. If conversion is needed, show both.\n\n### Step 8: Quality Appraisal\n\nPick an appraisal tool aligned to the included designs and apply it per study:\n\n| Designs Included | Suggested Tool |\n| --- | --- |\n| Randomized trials | Cochrane RoB 2 |\n| Non-randomized studies of interventions | ROBINS-I |\n| Observational / cohort / case-control | Newcastle–Ottawa Scale |\n| Qualitative | CASP Qualitative Checklist |\n| Mixed methods | MMAT |\n| Diagnostic accuracy | QUADAS-2 |\n\nFor each study, record per-domain judgments (Low / Some concerns / High; or tool-specific equivalents) with a one-sentence justification per domain. Never invent a domain rating — mark `Insufficient information` if needed.\n\n### Step 9: Synthesize\n\nWrite a narrative synthesis structured around the review question:\n\n- Themes that emerged across studies (with study IDs cited inline).\n- Convergent vs. divergent findings.\n- Gaps in the evidence base (populations, designs, outcomes not yet covered).\n- Patterns moderated by study quality (e.g., effect appears only in high-RoB studies).\n\nIf a meta-analysis is appropriate (homogeneous designs, comparable outcomes), state the conditions; do not produce pooled effect sizes inside this skill — defer to the user's statistical workflow.\n\n### Step 10: Review Before Finalizing\n\nCheck all of the following:\n\n- Every included study appears in the extraction table, appraisal table, and synthesis.\n- PRISMA stage counts reconcile (identified → deduped → screened → assessed → included; exclusion sums match).\n- Every extracted cell is either evidence-grounded, `NR`, or `not assessable`.\n- Every reason-coded exclusion uses a code from Step 2.\n- No DOIs, author names, journal names, or quotes were invented.\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]\n```\n[Boolean string with field tags]\n```\nAssumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never fabricate a citation, DOI, author, journal, year, or extracted result.** If it is not in the supplied text, it does not exist for this review.\n- **Ask one question at a time** when populating the framework, criteria, and search plan. Do not present a multi-question intake form.\n- **Reason codes must be defined in the protocol (Step 2) before any exclusion uses them.** Reusing or inventing new codes mid-review requires updating the protocol section explicitly.\n- **Unreported data is `NR`; unobtainable data is `not assessable from abstract`.** Never guess.\n- **PRISMA counts must reconcile** at every update — sums of exclusions must equal the difference between consecutive stages.\n- **Never produce pooled meta-analytic effect sizes** inside this skill. Recommend a statistical workflow instead.\n- **Treat unpublished manuscripts, embargoed data, and identifiable participant information** as confidential. Do not reuse in examples or in any external lookup.\n- **Quality appraisal judgments must cite the evidence sentence** that supports the rating. `Insufficient information` is a valid rating; speculation is not.\n- **Do not claim the search has been executed.** The skill drafts the strategy; the user runs it in the databases.\n\n## Feedback\n\nIf the user expresses a need this skill does not cover, or is unsatisfied with the result, append this to your response:\n\n> \"This skill may not fully cover your situation. Suggestions for improvement are welcome — [open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues).\"\n\nDo not include this message in normal interactions.\n\nFile v0.1.1:README.md\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Academic Research\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrives 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.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Graduate student or postdoc starting a systematic review or scoping review\n- Researcher preparing a PRISMA-compliant methods section for a journal submission\n- Evidence synthesis team building an extraction table from a candidate paper set\n- Anyone organizing a defensible, transparent review process across many studies\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Protocol & Search**\n1. Captures the review question in a structured framework (PICO, PEO, SPIDER, or CIMO) — one question at a time\n2. Defines explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases to search, date range, and language scope\n3. Drafts a reproducible search string with Boolean operators and field tags\n\n**Phase 2: Screening**\n4. Records every screening decision (Include / Exclude / Unclear) with a reason code drawn from the exclusion list\n5. Tracks counts at every PRISMA stage: identified, deduplicated, title/abstract screened, full-text assessed, included\n6. Flags conflicts (Unclear or contradictory decisions) for the reviewer to resolve before progressing\n\n**Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis**\n7. Builds a per-study extraction table aligned to the review question\n8. Applies a quality appraisal checklist appropriate to the study designs included\n9. Synthesizes results narratively (themes, gaps, contradictions) and produces the PRISMA flow diagram description\n\n## Output\n\nA 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.\n\n## Safety Notes\n\nThe 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.\n\n## Feedback & Contributions\n\nFound a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome.\n\nFile v0.1.1:_meta.json\n\n{\n \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n \"slug\": \"systematic-literature-review\",\n \"version\": \"0.1.1\",\n \"publishedAt\": 1779367964325\n}\n\nFile v0.1.1:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-20\nInitial 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.\n\nFile v0.1.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:
\nUse when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a PRISMA-aligned systematic or scoping literature review.
\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.
\n\n## Publisher:
\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)
\n\n### License/Terms of Use:
\nMIT-0
\n\n\n## Use Case:
\nResearchers, graduate students, and evidence-synthesis teams use this skill to plan and conduct systematic or scoping literature reviews with transparent protocol, screening, extraction, appraisal, and synthesis records.
\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:
\nGlobal
\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:
\nRisk: Confidential manuscripts, embargoed research, or identifiable participant data may be exposed in an agent session.
\nMitigation: Do not paste sensitive research material unless it is approved for processing in the agent environment; redact or summarize sensitive details where possible.
\nRisk: A review packet can become misleading if citations, extracted fields, or appraisal judgments are guessed.
\nMitigation: Trace every extracted cell and appraisal judgment to user-supplied evidence; mark missing data as NR or not assessable from abstract.
\nRisk: Screening decisions and PRISMA counts can become inconsistent across review stages.
\nMitigation: Define exclusion reason codes before screening, reuse those codes consistently, and reconcile PRISMA counts after each decision update.
\n\n\n## Reference(s):
\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/systematic-literature-review)
\n\n\n## Skill Output:
\n**Output Type(s):** [markdown, guidance]
\n**Output Format:** [Markdown review packet with protocol summary, search strategy, PRISMA flow counts, screening log, extraction table, quality appraisal, narrative synthesis, limitations, and notes.]
\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]
\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Requires user-supplied search results, abstracts, full texts, and review decisions; unreported fields are marked NR or not assessable rather than guessed.]
\n\n## Skill Version(s):
\n0.1.1 (source: server release evidence and CHANGELOG, released 2026-05-21)
\n\n## Ethical Considerations:
\nUsers 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.
\n\nArchive v0.1.0: 4 files, 6375 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (261b), README.md (2541b), SKILL.md (10130b), _meta.json (147b)\n\nFile v0.1.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: systematic-literature-review\ndescription: Use when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to conduct a PRISMA-aligned systematic or scoping literature review. Guides protocol definition, search-strategy construction, reason-coded screening, structured data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative synthesis, and produces a reviewer-ready review packet with PRISMA flow counts.\n---\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\nYou 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.\n\n**Default reporting standard:** PRISMA 2020 unless the user specifies another (e.g., PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence syntheses).\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow 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.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Protocol & Search\n\n### Step 1: Frame the Review Question\n\nChoose the framework that best fits the question, and fill every slot. Ask the user one question at a time to populate it.\n\n| Framework | Best For | Slots |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **PICO** | Clinical / intervention | Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome |\n| **PEO** | Etiology / risk factors | Population, Exposure, Outcome |\n| **SPIDER** | Qualitative / mixed methods | Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type |\n| **CIMO** | Management / organizational | Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome |\n\nIf the user is unsure, propose a framework based on the question type and ask them to confirm before continuing.\n\n### Step 2: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\n\nCapture each as a short, testable statement. Examples:\n\n- **Include:** peer-reviewed empirical studies; published 2015–2025; English; adult populations (≥18); randomized or quasi-experimental designs.\n- **Exclude:** editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts without full text; non-English; pediatric-only samples; pure modeling or simulation papers.\n\nEach 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.\n\n### Step 3: Define the Search Strategy\n\nCapture, then build:\n\n- Databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL)\n- Date range\n- Language scope\n- Grey-literature scope (Yes / No; if Yes, sources)\n- Hand-search / backward-citation / forward-citation plans\n\nDraft a Boolean search string per database, using each platform's field tags. State assumptions explicitly (e.g., \"no MeSH explosion used; rerun if recall is too narrow\"). Never claim the search has been executed — the user runs it in the database and returns the results.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Screening\n\n### Step 4: Title / Abstract Screening\n\nFor each record the user supplies, record one decision:\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 001 | Smith 2022 | Include | — | meets P, I, O |\n| 002 | Jones 2019 | Exclude | E1 | review article |\n| 003 | Patel 2024 | Unclear | — | abstract ambiguous on outcome |\n\nRules:\n- A single criterion failure is enough to exclude — use the most specific applicable code.\n- \"Unclear\" is a valid decision; it forces progression to full-text review.\n- Never extrapolate beyond what the title and abstract say.\n\n### Step 5: Full-Text Screening\n\nFor records that passed Step 4 or are Unclear, the user supplies full text. Repeat the decision log with the same reason codes. If full text is not available, exclude with reason code `E4: no full text` and note it explicitly.\n\n### Step 6: Track PRISMA Flow\n\nMaintain running counts at every stage:\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Records identified (databases + grey + hand) | n |\n| Records after deduplication | n |\n| Records screened (title/abstract) | n |\n| Records excluded at title/abstract | n |\n| Full-text articles assessed | n |\n| Full-text articles excluded (with reason-code totals) | n |\n| Studies included in synthesis | n |\n\nUpdate these counts every time a decision is recorded. If reviewer disagreement or conflict-resolution is part of the user's workflow, mark resolved-by entries in the Notes column.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis\n\n### Step 7: Build the Extraction Table\n\nDesign the table from the review question — one column per data point you committed to extract in the protocol. Common columns:\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | Sample / N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes Measured | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n\nExtraction rules:\n- Every cell must trace to a sentence in the supplied paper. If a field is not reported, write `NR` (not reported) — never guess.\n- If the cell is unanswerable from an abstract alone (and full text was not supplied), write `not assessable from abstract`.\n- Preserve the paper's own numbers and units; do not convert silently. If conversion is needed, show both.\n\n### Step 8: Quality Appraisal\n\nPick an appraisal tool aligned to the included designs and apply it per study:\n\n| Designs Included | Suggested Tool |\n| --- | --- |\n| Randomized trials | Cochrane RoB 2 |\n| Non-randomized studies of interventions | ROBINS-I |\n| Observational / cohort / case-control | Newcastle–Ottawa Scale |\n| Qualitative | CASP Qualitative Checklist |\n| Mixed methods | MMAT |\n| Diagnostic accuracy | QUADAS-2 |\n\nFor each study, record per-domain judgments (Low / Some concerns / High; or tool-specific equivalents) with a one-sentence justification per domain. Never invent a domain rating — mark `Insufficient information` if needed.\n\n### Step 9: Synthesize\n\nWrite a narrative synthesis structured around the review question:\n\n- Themes that emerged across studies (with study IDs cited inline).\n- Convergent vs. divergent findings.\n- Gaps in the evidence base (populations, designs, outcomes not yet covered).\n- Patterns moderated by study quality (e.g., effect appears only in high-RoB studies).\n\nIf a meta-analysis is appropriate (homogeneous designs, comparable outcomes), state the conditions; do not produce pooled effect sizes inside this skill — defer to the user's statistical workflow.\n\n### Step 10: Review Before Finalizing\n\nCheck all of the following:\n\n- Every included study appears in the extraction table, appraisal table, and synthesis.\n- PRISMA stage counts reconcile (identified → deduped → screened → assessed → included; exclusion sums match).\n- Every extracted cell is either evidence-grounded, `NR`, or `not assessable`.\n- Every reason-coded exclusion uses a code from Step 2.\n- No DOIs, author names, journal names, or quotes were invented.\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]\n```\n[Boolean string with field tags]\n```\nAssumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never fabricate a citation, DOI, author, journal, year, or extracted result.** If it is not in the supplied text, it does not exist for this review.\n- **Ask one question at a time** when populating the framework, criteria, and search plan. Do not present a multi-question intake form.\n- **Reason codes must be defined in the protocol (Step 2) before any exclusion uses them.** Reusing or inventing new codes mid-review requires updating the protocol section explicitly.\n- **Unreported data is `NR`; unobtainable data is `not assessable from abstract`.** Never guess.\n- **PRISMA counts must reconcile** at every update — sums of exclusions must equal the difference between consecutive stages.\n- **Never produce pooled meta-analytic effect sizes** inside this skill. Recommend a statistical workflow instead.\n- **Treat unpublished manuscripts, embargoed data, and identifiable participant information** as confidential. Do not reuse in examples or in any external lookup.\n- **Quality appraisal judgments must cite the evidence sentence** that supports the rating. `Insufficient information` is a valid rating; speculation is not.\n- **Do not claim the search has been executed.** The skill drafts the strategy; the user runs it in the databases.\n\nFile v0.1.0:README.md\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Academic Research\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrives 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.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Graduate student or postdoc starting a systematic review or scoping review\n- Researcher preparing a PRISMA-compliant methods section for a journal submission\n- Evidence synthesis team building an extraction table from a candidate paper set\n- Anyone organizing a defensible, transparent review process across many studies\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Protocol & Search**\n1. Captures the review question in a structured framework (PICO, PEO, SPIDER, or CIMO) — one question at a time\n2. Defines explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases to search, date range, and language scope\n3. Drafts a reproducible search string with Boolean operators and field tags\n\n**Phase 2: Screening**\n4. Records every screening decision (Include / Exclude / Unclear) with a reason code drawn from the exclusion list\n5. Tracks counts at every PRISMA stage: identified, deduplicated, title/abstract screened, full-text assessed, included\n6. Flags conflicts (Unclear or contradictory decisions) for the reviewer to resolve before progressing\n\n**Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis**\n7. Builds a per-study extraction table aligned to the review question\n8. Applies a quality appraisal checklist appropriate to the study designs included\n9. Synthesizes results narratively (themes, gaps, contradictions) and produces the PRISMA flow diagram description\n\n## Output\n\nA 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.\n\n## Safety Notes\n\nThe 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.\n\nFile v0.1.0:_meta.json\n\n{\n \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n \"slug\": \"systematic-literature-review\",\n \"version\": \"0.1.0\",\n \"publishedAt\": 1779239569127\n}\n\nFile v0.1.0:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-20\nInitial 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.","readmeExcerpt":"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","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"text","snippet":"# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Assumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Assumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"# Systematic Literature Review Packet\n**Review title:** [...]\n**Framework:** [PICO / PEO / SPIDER / CIMO]\n**Reporting standard:** [PRISMA 2020 / PRISMA-ScR / ...]\n**Date prepared:** [today]\n\n---\n\n## 1. Protocol Summary\n- Question (framed): [...]\n- Inclusion criteria: [...]\n- Exclusion criteria with reason codes: E1 [...], E2 [...], ...\n- Databases & date range: [...]\n- Grey literature & hand-search plan: [...]\n\n## 2. Search Strategy\n\n### [Database 1]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"Assumptions: [...]\n\n### [Database 2]\n[...]\n\n---\n\n## 3. PRISMA Flow Counts\n\n| Stage | Count |\n| --- | --- |\n| Identified | n |\n| After deduplication | n |\n| Title/abstract screened | n |\n| Excluded at title/abstract | n (by code: E1=n, E2=n, ...) |\n| Full text assessed | n |\n| Full text excluded | n (by code: E1=n, E4=n, ...) |\n| Included in synthesis | n |\n\n---\n\n## 4. Screening Log\n\n| Record # | Citation (short) | Stage | Decision | Reason Code | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 5. Extraction Table\n\n| Study ID | Authors / Year | Country | Design | N | Intervention / Exposure | Comparator | Outcomes | Key Findings | Funding / COI |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 6. Quality Appraisal\n\n**Tool:** [RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle–Ottawa / CASP / MMAT / QUADAS-2]\n\n| Study ID | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | ... | Overall | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n---\n\n## 7. Narrative Synthesis\n\n[Themes, convergent/divergent findings, gaps, quality-moderated patterns — every claim cites study IDs]\n\n---\n\n## 8. Limitations & Open Questions\n- [...]\n\n## 9. Notes\n[Assumptions, deviations from protocol, items requiring co-reviewer adjudication]"}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nname: systematic-literature-review\ndescription: >\n Use this skill when a researcher, graduate student, or evidence-synthesis team needs to\n conduct a systematic or scoping literature review. Covers PRISMA-aligned protocol definition,\n search-strategy construction, screened inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, quality appraisal,\n and narrative synthesis. Produces a reviewer-ready review packet with PRISMA flow counts.\n---\n\n# Systematic Literature Review\n\nYou 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.\n\n**Default reporting standard:** PRISMA 2020 unless the user specifies another (e.g., PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence syntheses).\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow 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.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Protocol & Search\n\n### Step 1: Frame the Review Question\n\nChoose the framework that best fits the question, and fill every slot. Ask the user one question at a time to populate it.\n\n| Framework | Best For | Slots |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **PICO** | Clinical / intervention | Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome |\n| **PEO** | Etiology / risk factors | Population, Exposure, Outcome |\n| **SPIDER** | Qualitative / mixed methods | Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type |\n| **CIMO** | Management / organizational | Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome |\n\nIf the user is unsure, propose a framework based on the question type and ask them to confirm before continuing.\n\n### Step 2: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\n\nCapture each as a short, testable statement. Examples:\n\n- **Include:** peer-reviewed empirical studies; published 2015–2025; English; adult populations (≥18); randomized or quasi-experimental designs.\n- **Exclude:** editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts without full text; non-English; pediatric-only samples; pure modeling or simulation papers.\n\nEach 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.\n\n### Step 3: Define the Search Strategy\n\nCapture, then build:\n\n- Databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL)\n- Date range\n- Language scope\n- Grey-literature scope (Yes / No; if Yes, sources)\n- Hand-search / backward-citation / forward-citation plans\n\nDraft a Boolean search string per database, using each platform's field tags. State assumptions explicitly (e.g., \"no MeSH explosion u"},{"path":"README.md","content":"# Systematic Literature Review\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Academic Research\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrives 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.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Graduate student or postdoc starting a systematic review or scoping review\n- Researcher preparing a PRISMA-compliant methods section for a journal submission\n- Evidence synthesis team building an extraction table from a candidate paper set\n- Anyone organizing a defensible, transparent review process across many studies\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Protocol & Search**\n1. Captures the review question in a structured framework (PICO, PEO, SPIDER, or CIMO) — one question at a time\n2. Defines explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases to search, date range, and language scope\n3. Drafts a reproducible search string with Boolean operators and field tags\n\n**Phase 2: Screening**\n4. Records every screening decision (Include / Exclude / Unclear) with a reason code drawn from the exclusion list\n5. Tracks counts at every PRISMA stage: identified, deduplicated, title/abstract screened, full-text assessed, included\n6. Flags conflicts (Unclear or contradictory decisions) for the reviewer to resolve before progressing\n\n**Phase 3: Extraction, Appraisal & Synthesis**\n7. Builds a per-study extraction table aligned to the review question\n8. Applies a quality appraisal checklist appropriate to the study designs included\n9. Synthesizes results narratively (themes, gaps, contradictions) and produces the PRISMA flow diagram description\n\n## Output\n\nA 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.\n\n## Safety Notes\n\nThe 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.\n\n## Feedback & Contributions\n\nFound a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome."},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n \"slug\": \"systematic-literature-review\",\n \"version\": \"0.1.3\",\n \"publishedAt\": 1779961542612\n}"},{"path":"CHANGELOG.md","content":"# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.2] - 2026-05-28\nRewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-20\nInitial 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."},{"path":"skill-card.md","content":"## Description:\n\nGuides 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.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nResearchers, 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.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill may process unpublished manuscripts, embargoed material, or identifiable participant information supplied by the user.\n\nMitigation: Use only documents the user is authorized to share and keep unpublished or identifiable materials confidential.\n\nRisk: Example language limits or inclusion criteria could be accepted without considering the review protocol.\n\nMitigation: Set language scope, eligibility criteria, and reason codes deliberately before screening records.\n\nRisk: Fabricated or unsupported citations, extracted fields, or appraisal judgments would undermine the review.\n\nMitigation: Require every citation, DOI, extracted value, and quality appraisal judgment to trace to user-supplied evidence; mark missing fields as NR or not assessable.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/systematic-literature-review)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown review packet with structured tables and fenced Boolean search strings]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**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.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n0.1.3 (source: server release metadata)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers 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."}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"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","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":1522,"uniquenessScore":49,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T02:18:25.794Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T06:44:18.985Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"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!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"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","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}