agentsclimarketplace

Map literature contradictions

Skill xingtaxueshu/literature-review-skills/skills/map-literature-contradictions

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 map-literature-contradictions

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

Analyze conflicting findings in a literature review and turn disagreement into structured insight. Use when the user has papers, abstracts, notes, or claims that disagree and needs to identify consensus, explain contradictions by sample/method/indicator/context/time differences, define explanation boundaries, or write a stronger synthesis section.

SKILL.md

3.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Map Literature Contradictions

Goal

Use contradiction as information. Instead of avoiding inconsistent findings, map what researchers agree on, where they diverge, and what hidden conditions or method limits explain the disagreement.

Workflow: Comb Method

  1. Find consensus: list findings repeatedly supported across studies, settings, or methods.
  2. Separate contradictions: name the exact claim that conflicts rather than saying "the literature is mixed".
  3. Compare study conditions: inspect object, sample, indicator, method, time window, and context.
  4. Infer why the difference matters: connect the comparison to theory, mechanism, or validity.
  5. Mark explanation boundaries: identify what current methods or data cannot answer.
  6. Convert the boundary into a possible research contribution.

Contradiction Matrix

Use this table when the user provides multiple papers or claims:

| Study/claim | Finding | Object/sample | Method | Indicator | Time/context | Possible reason for difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

Then summarize in prose:

The disagreement is less about whether [factor] matters and more about when it matters. Studies using [sample/method/indicator] tend to find [result], while studies in [context/time] find [different result]. This suggests the effect may be conditional on [boundary], rather than universally positive or negative.

Difference Dimensions To Check

  • Research object: region, industry, population, organization type, development stage.
  • Sample: size, selection method, subgroup, representativeness.
  • Indicator: how the key variable or outcome is measured.
  • Method: cross-sectional, longitudinal, interview, experiment, case, meta-analysis.
  • Time window: policy period, crisis period, before/after intervention, short vs long term.
  • Theoretical lens: rational choice, institutional, social network, capability, cultural, ecological, etc.

Output Format

Provide:

## Consensus

- ...

## Main Contradictions

1. ...

## Contradiction Matrix

| Study/claim | Finding | Object/sample | Method | Indicator | Time/context | Possible reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Synthesis Paragraph

[Ready-to-use review synthesis]

## Explanation Boundaries

- Current literature cannot yet explain ...

Guardrails

  • Do not force agreement by selecting only consistent studies.
  • Do not claim a contradiction is solved unless the provided evidence supports the explanation.
  • Distinguish observed differences from inferred importance; label inferences clearly.

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.