agentsclimarketplace

Decompose review modules

Skill xingtaxueshu/literature-review-skills/skills/decompose-review-modules

Five open agent skills for sharper literature reviews: question refinement, review modules, method comparison, contradiction mapping, and research gap discovery.

Install
npx -y skills add xingtaxueshu/literature-review-skills --skill decompose-review-modules

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Decompose a refined research question for a literature review into 3-5 clear, mostly non-overlapping review modules. Use when the user has a core review question and needs to build a literature review structure, reading map, subsection outline, coding scheme, or module-based search plan instead of listing papers author by author.

SKILL.md

2.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Decompose Review Modules

Goal

Convert one core research question into a small set of review modules that cover the key dimensions of the problem without collapsing into a loose topic list.

Workflow

  1. Restate the core question in one sentence.
  2. Identify the main actors, mechanisms, outcomes, contexts, and constraints embedded in the question.
  3. Propose 3-5 modules that are independent enough to become review sections.
  4. Check overlap: if one paper naturally belongs to three modules, the module boundaries are probably weak.
  5. Check coverage: the modules together should explain the main question's key dimensions.
  6. Flag likely dense, thin, or promising modules based on expected literature distribution.

Module Design Rules

Good modules should be:

  • Mutually distinguishable: each module asks a different sub-question.
  • Collectively useful: together they help answer the core question.
  • Literature-searchable: each can generate keywords, inclusion criteria, and section titles.
  • Analytical rather than decorative: avoid generic buckets like "background", "status", or "problems" unless they express a real mechanism.

Common Module Axes

Choose axes that fit the question:

  • Drivers: economic incentives, capability thresholds, social networks, institutional environment.
  • Mechanisms: perception, decision process, resource allocation, coordination, feedback loops.
  • Actors: individuals, organizations, platforms, governments, communities.
  • Stages: adoption, use, persistence, exit, diffusion.
  • Contexts: region, industry, policy period, population type, technology maturity.
  • Outcomes: performance, equity, participation, sustainability, resilience.

Output Format

Provide:

## Core Question

[One sentence]

## Proposed Modules

| Module | Sub-question | Include | Exclude |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Coverage Check

- What the modules cover well: ...
- Possible missing dimension: ...
- Possible overlap to revise: ...

## Suggested Review Outline

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Guardrails

  • Do not create more than five main modules unless the user explicitly asks for a large taxonomy.
  • Do not organize modules only by author, year, country, or method unless that is the analytical point.
  • When the user gives only a broad topic, first invoke question refinement logic before decomposing modules.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.