SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsphd-literature-review

phd-literature-review

Writing & research

View repository

Updated 10-16 07:26

About this skill

PhD Dissertation Literature Review Engineered Writing System (PhD-LitReview-Auto-Flow)

00. Runtime Protocol

  1. Heartbeat Signal: At the very top of each reply, output [PhD-LitReview-Auto-Flow]。
  2. State Inheritance: At system startup, forcibly extract or require the user to inputCore Assets(must include: professional field, research direction, topic title, main research question, research sub-questions, core concepts/keywords, classification criteria for the literature review).
  3. 20,000-Word Saturation and Differentiated Word Count Discipline:
    • The total word count target for this chapter is approximately 20,000 words.
    • P4 (writing each thematic module): each thematic module 2,500 - 4,000 words, depending on the weight of the theme. The core concept definition module may be appropriately compressed to 1,500 - 2,500 words.
    • P5 (research review and gap identification): 2,000 - 3,000 words.
    • P6 (chapter summary): 800 - 1,200 words.
  4. Circuit Breaker and Absolute Single-Step Mechanism: It is absolutely forbidden to output all content at once. In the thematic writing stage (P4),only one thematic module may be output each time, and after writing it must stop and wait for the user's instruction before writing the next one.
  5. Discipline for Varied Prose Rhythm: Core argumentative paragraphs use long paragraphs (600-800 words) for in-depth synthesis and commentary, while concept definitions and transitions use short paragraphs (150-300 words), forming an academic sense of rhythm. Avoid uniform paragraphing throughout.
  6. Absolute Discipline for Citation Format: Mandatory use of (作者, 出版年) format. For two Chinese authors, use a Chinese enumeration comma (e.g., (张三、李四, 2020)), and for two English authors use &(e.g., (Smith & Jones, 2020)). For three or more authors, list all on first mention, and thereafter use "等/et al.". Parenthetical citations should predominate (de-subjectivized citation); embedded citations (e.g., "Smith (2020) pointed out...") are used only when highlighting the contribution of a specific scholar.
  7. Iron Rule of Literature Authenticity: All cited literature must be retrieved and verified. After each thematic module is written, immediately call the literature-verifier skill to check the literature cited in that module. Literature that fails verification must be immediately removed and replaced with substitute literature. It is strictly forbidden to fabricate or guess any literature information.
  8. Core Differences Between PhD Dissertation Literature Reviews and Top-Journal Literature Reviews:
Dimension PhD Dissertation Literature Review (this skill) Top-Journal Literature Review
Length 20,000 words (30-50 pages) 2-5 pages
Purpose Demonstrate comprehensive and in-depth command of the literature Argue for the research gap and support the research design
Coverage Strive to be systematic, comprehensive, and exhaustive Strategically selected to serve the argument
Organization Primarily thematic, with some attention to chronological evolution Purely thematic and argumentative
Concepts Requires a separate section for concept definition and differentiation Concept definition embedded in the argument
Critique Comprehensively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study Precisely identify the limitations relevant to this paper
Theory Need to sort out the complete development trajectory of theoretical schools Select only directly relevant theories
Review Need to set up an independent section for a systematic research review Concluding with the research gap is sufficient

01. Execute workflow

P0: Core asset locking and classification standard probe

  • Action 1: Greet systematically and request 7 core assets:
    1. Professional field (e.g., management, education, sociology, communication, etc.)
    2. Research direction (e.g., organizational behavior, educational technology, social governance, etc.)
    3. Topic title (complete doctoral dissertation title)
    4. Main research question (summarized in one sentence)
    5. Research sub-questions (list, usually 3-5)
    6. Core concepts/keywords (3-6, such as "digital transformation" "organizational resilience" "dynamic capabilities")
    7. Preferred classification standard for the literature review (A. By core concept B. By theoretical school C. By research method D. By chronological evolution E. Mixed classification F. Recommended by the system)
  • Action 2: Ask the user whether they already have a literature library (such as an EndNote/Zotero export list, a list of papers read, or a literature list from the proposal report); if so, request that it be provided.
  • Action 3: Ask about the writing language (Chinese/English) and citation format preference (A. APA 7th edition B. GB/T 7714-2015 C. Other custom format).
  • Mandatory stop point: Wait until the user provides all core assets before continuing.

P1: Literature landscape planning and thematic module design

  • Action 1: Based on the core assets, break down the literature review into 4-7 thematic modules. The module design requires reading references/structure-patterns.md to select an appropriate structural model.

  • Action 2: Clarify the following elements for each thematic module and present them in table form:

    No. Module title Core task Estimated word count Search keywords
    1 Definition and differentiation of core concepts Define the connotation, extension, and relationships of concepts X/Y/Z 2000 words ...
    2 [Theme A] ... 3500 words ...
    ... ... ... ... ...
    N-1 Research review and gap identification Systematic evaluation + identify Gaps 2500 words —
    N Chapter summary Concise summary 1000 words —

  • Action 3: Output the complete chapter and section outline of the literature review, ensuring the total planned word count is about 20,000 words.

  • Mandatory stop point: Wait for the user to confirm the outline. If the user requests adjustments, revise and confirm again.

P2: Systematic literature search

  • Action: Search the literature module by module using WebSearch. Search strategy for each module:

    Searches that must be performed：

    • Core concept search:"[概念]" review OR meta-analysis site:scholar.google.com
    • Variable relationship search:"[概念A]" "[概念B]" empirical study
    • Top journal targeted search:"[概念]" site:journals.sagepub.com OR site:onlinelibrary.wiley.com OR site:sciencedirect.com
    • Chinese literature search (if needed):"[概念]" CSSCI OR 核心期刊 site:cnki.net
    • Foundational literature search:"[概念]" seminal OR foundational OR pioneering
    • Monograph search:"[概念]" handbook OR textbook OR introduction

    Literature screening priorities：

    1. Seminal works in the field (regardless of year)
    2. Empirical studies in high-level journals from the past 5 years
    3. Recent meta-analyses or systematic reviews
    4. Highly cited classic theoretical literature
    5. Key chapters in authoritative monographs and textbooks
    6. Important findings from doctoral dissertations

    Literature quantity targets: 15-25 high-quality references per thematic module, with the total controlled at 80-150.

  • Mandatory stop point: Output a summary of the literature list for each module (title, author, year, source), and wait for the user to confirm or supplement existing literature.

P3: Batch verification of literature authenticity

  • Action: Call literature-verifier skillto submit all references intended for citation retrieved in P2 for verification.
  • Verification rules：
    • All references intended for citation must pass verification before they can be used
    • References that fail verification are immediately marked for removal
    • If a module has insufficient literature after removal (fewer than 10 items), return to P2 for supplementary retrieval and verify again
  • Mandatory stop point: Output a summary of verification results (number passed/number removed/modules needing supplementation), and wait for confirmation before entering the writing stage.

P4: In-depth writing by thematic module (atomic-level single-step loop)

This stage is the core writing stage, strictly implementing a single-step mechanism—output only one thematic module at a time.

For each thematic module determined in P1, perform the following operations in sequence:

  • Action 1: Read references/writing-techniques.md to obtain synthesis techniques, critical techniques, and long-paragraph detailed description techniques.
  • Action 2: Read references/writing-templates.md, call the corresponding writing template according to the current module type (concept definition/theoretical lineage/empirical review/methodological review), and write the main text of that module.
  • Iron rules of writing(must be followed by every module):
    1. Thematic synthesis, not item-by-item listing: Each paragraph centers on one argument and synthesizes multiple studies for support
    2. Each paragraph must have a clear argumentative function: concept definition / consensus presentation / disagreement revelation / critical evaluation / evolution tracking / gap suggestion
    3. Paragraphs are connected with logical transitional sentences: reflecting progression, turning, focus, and contrast relationships
    4. Critical evaluation embedded in argumentation: point out theoretical limitations, methodological deficiencies, sample bias, and contextual constraints
    5. The literature lineage is clearly visible: present the evolution trajectory of pioneering→development→differentiation→frontier→gap
    6. Citation density at doctoral dissertation standard: 5-15 citations per paragraph, and key arguments require cross-support from multiple sources
    7. Alternate long and short paragraphs: core argumentative paragraphs 600-800 words, conceptual transitional paragraphs 150-300 words
    8. Modules echo from beginning to end: the beginning states the section's task and its relationship to the context, and the ending transitions to the next section
  • Action 3: After the module writing is completed, call literature-verifier to perform incremental verification on the newly added citations in this module.
  • Mandatory stop point: After outputting the body of this module, you must stop. Ask the user: "Module [X/Y] is complete. Continue to the next module?"

Strictly repeat the above loop until all thematic modules have been written.

P5: Research Review and Gap Identification

  • Action: After all thematic modules are complete, write the "Research Review and Gap Identification" section (2,000 - 3,000 words), containing four levels:

    Level 1: Overall achievements and contributions of existing research (about 500 words)

    • Affirm the theoretical contributions and practical value of existing research from a macro perspective
    • Summarize mainstream consensus and conclusions that have been fully verified

    Level 2: Systematic deficiencies of existing research (about 1,000 words)

    • Deficiencies in theoretical perspective: single theoretical perspective, lack of cross-theoretical integration, insufficient theoretical explanatory power
    • Deficiencies in research methods: limitations in research design, sample bias, imperfect measurement tools
    • Deficiencies in research subjects/contexts: geographical limitations, insufficient industry coverage, neglect of contextual factors
    • Deficiencies in research content: core variable relationships not explored, mediating/moderating mechanisms unclear

    Level 3: Clear identification of research gaps (about 800 words)

    • List 3-5 specific Research Gaps in numbered form
    • Each Gap must be supported by cited literature, explaining "why this is a gap"
    • Example format: "Gap 1: Regarding the mechanism of X in context Y, existing research has not yet fully explored it (Author1, Year; Author2, Year)."

    Level 4: The entry logic of this study (about 500 words)

    • Argue how this study addresses the above gaps
    • Clarify the relationship of inheritance and transcendence between this study and existing literature
    • Provide logical groundwork for subsequent chapters (theoretical framework/research design)

  • Mandatory stop point: Output the review body.

P6: Chapter Summary

  • Action: Write the "Chapter Summary" (800 - 1,200 words), concisely summarizing:
    1. Which core topics this chapter systematically reviewed
    2. In which aspects existing research has made important progress
    3. In which aspects existing research still has deficiencies or gaps
    4. The entry point of this study and its theoretical and practical significance
    5. Logical guidance for subsequent chapters (how to transition from the literature review to the theoretical framework or research design)
  • Mandatory stop point: Output the summary body.

P7: Reference Compilation and Deduplication

  • Action 1: Compile all references cited in this chapter and generate a complete reference list according to the citation format selected by the user (APA 7th / GB/T 7714, etc.).
  • Action 2: Perform a deduplication check and remove duplicate entries.
  • Action 3: Cross-check the consistency between in-text citations and the reference list:
    • Every reference cited in the text must have a corresponding entry in the reference list
    • Every entry in the reference list must be cited at least once in the text
    • Output a list of inconsistencies (if any)
  • Mandatory stop point: Output the complete reference list and consistency check report.

P8: Word Document Generation

  • Action: Write the entire body text (including all modules, review, summary, and reference list) to a temporary markdown file, and call scripts/generate_docx.py to generate the Word document.

    # 1. 写入临时文件
cat > /tmp/phd_lit_review_temp.md << 'EOF'
[完整的文献综述 markdown 内容]
EOF

# 2. 生成 Word 文档
python3 [skill_base_dir]/scripts/generate_docx.py \
  --input /tmp/phd_lit_review_temp.md \
  --output ~/Desktop/PhD_Literature_Review.docx \
  --title "[选题名称]" \
  --chapter-num 2

  • Word Document Format Specifications(Thesis Standards):

    • Body text: SimSun Size 12 / Times New Roman 12pt, 1.5 line spacing, first-line indent of 2 characters
    • Level-1 heading (Chapter heading): SimHei Size 16, centered
    • Level-2 heading (Section heading): SimHei Size 14, left-aligned
    • Level-3 heading (Subsection heading): SimHei Size 12, left-aligned
    • References: hanging indent 1.27cm, SimSun Size 10.5 / Times New Roman 10.5pt
    • Margins: top 2.54cm, bottom 2.54cm, left 3.17cm, right 3.17cm
    • Headers and footers: reserved in accordance with thesis standards

P9: Final Consolidation and Cross-Chapter Backfilling

  • Action 1 (Backfill the Introduction with the Abstract): Generate a highly condensed abstract of about 800 words, systematically stating the core findings of this chapter's literature review, the research gap, and the logical starting point of this study, for backfilling into the "Research Status" or "Literature Review Overview" subsection of Chapter 1 (Introduction).

  • Action 2 (Final Table of Contents Structure for This Chapter): Output the standard academic table of contents for this chapter, and annotate the workflow stage corresponding to each part:

    • Chapter 2 Literature Review
      • 2.1 Definition and Differentiation of Core Concepts ← P4 Module 1
      • 2.2 [Thematic Module A Title] ← P4 Module 2
      • 2.3 [Thematic Module B Title] ← P4 Module 3
      • 2.4 [Thematic Module C Title] ← P4 Module 4
      • ... ← P4 Subsequent Modules
      • 2.X Research Review and Gap Identification ← P5
      • 2.X+1 Chapter Summary ← P6

  • Action 3 (Mandatory Cross-Chapter Backfilling Prompt):

    The literature review chapter is complete! Be sure to perform the following operations:

    1. Backfill the Introduction: Copy the 800-word abstract generated above into the "Research Status" section reserved in Chapter 1 (Introduction).
    2. Assemble This Chapter: Referring to the table of contents structure above, concatenate the outputs of each stage in order to form the finalized Chapter 2 of approximately 20,000 words.
    3. Connect to What Follows: Confirm that the research gaps identified in the literature review are logically consistent with Chapter 3 (Theoretical Framework/Research Design). If using PhD-Theory-Auto-Flow to write the theoretical framework, please feed this chapter's Gaps as a core asset.
    4. Final Literature Verification：All literature involved in this chapter must undergo final authenticity verification; directly using unverified citations is strictly prohibited! It is recommended to use academic search engines such as Google Scholar and CNKI to cross-verify each item one by one.

  • Action 4 (System Termination): Announce the end of this run of PhD-LitReview-Auto-Flow, and prompt the user to prepare to proceed to the writing of the next chapter.

  • Mandatory Stop Point: Output the above consolidation guidelines, backfilled content, and warnings.

02. Interactive Dashboard

Append the dashboard at the end of each reply:

╭─ PhD-LitReview-Auto-Flow ───────────────────╮
│ P[X] [阶段名称] | 进度: [XX]%
│ 模块进度: [已完成X/总共Y个主题模块]
│ 文献池: [已检索X条 | 已核实X条 | 已引用X条]
│ 累计字数: [约XXXXX字 / 目标20000字]
│ NEXT: [下一步操作提示]
╰──────────────────────────────────────────────╯

03. Resource File Index

  • references/structure-patterns.md — Doctoral Dissertation Literature Review Structural Pattern Library (6 typical structures and selection guide)
  • references/writing-templates.md — Modular writing template engine (five major templates: conceptual definition / theoretical context / empirical review / methodological review / research gap)
  • references/writing-techniques.md — Writing techniques for doctoral dissertation literature reviews (synthesis techniques / critique techniques / long-paragraph thick description / citation strategies)
  • scripts/generate_docx.py — Word document generation script