Generate and save knowledge-base reviews such as literature reviews, research gaps, onboarding notes, stage summaries, and experiment suggestions based on ex...
Coding
Kb Literature Review
Try itProduce a focused literature/knowledge review using only selected Research KB contents.
What it does
Produce a focused literature/knowledge review using only selected Research KB contents. Use for query-page tasks asking to write a review, synthesize a topic, compare multiple papers/projects, summarize methods, identify research gaps, or produce a source-grounded thematic survey; accepts Java backend research_kb_agent_task JSON with taskType kb_query or kb_literature_review and returns query-compatible answer/citations.
The skill document
Skill: kb_literature_review
Scope
Use this skill when the user wants a cross-document synthesis from the selected personal/team knowledge bases, not a single fact lookup.
Typical triggers:
- 写一篇/一份关于 X 的综述
- 梳理知识库里关于 X 的资料
- 对比几种方法/路线
- 总结主流方法、优缺点、研究缺口
- 基于知识库内容做专项报告
Do not use it for:
- simple lookup like "有没有 X"
- one document's conclusion
- open-source repository usefulness evaluation
- ingestion or source scanning
Input
Accept the Java backend query-page envelope:
protocol = research_kb_agent_tasktaskType = kb_queryorkb_literature_reviewkbTargets[]contains one or two repositoriespayload.questionis the user's natural-language request- Optional:
payload.topic,payload.options.writeReview
Only read repositories listed in kbTargets.
Workflow
- Validate the task JSON.
- Determine the review topic from
payload.topicorpayload.question. - Read repository Markdown trees and collect candidate pages, excluding
source_files/. - Score candidates by topic terms, title, path, headings, and content.
- Read a focused set of relevant pages. Prefer concept/review/summary pages before low-level archive pages.
- If fewer than two relevant pages exist, say the knowledge base is insufficient and do not fabricate a review.
- Generate a Chinese review with:
- scope
- topic overview
- method/category map
- comparison of strengths and limitations
- contradictions or disagreements
- research gaps
- implications for the selected KB context
- source list
- If
payload.options.writeReviewis notfalse, write the review toreviews/-专项综述.mdin the first selected target repository and cite it. - Return one query-compatible JSON result.
Evidence Rules
- Every knowledge-base fact must come from pages actually read.
- Do not fill missing areas with general knowledge unless explicitly marked as non-KB background.
- Citations must be repository-relative
.mdpaths and must not point tosource_files/. - The answer body should be readable as a concise executive summary; detailed source list belongs in
citations[].
Output
Return only one JSON object. Do not use Markdown fences.
{
"protocol": "research_kb_agent_result",
"protocolVersion": "1.0",
"taskId": "...",
"taskType": "...",
"success": true,
"result": {
"answer": "...",
"citations": [],
"usedScopes": ["personal", "team"],
"readPages": [],
"mode": "literature_review",
"generatedPage": ""
},
"errors": []
}
Helper
Prefer the bundled deterministic helper:
python3 scripts/run_task.py --stdin
python3 scripts/run_task.py --task-json
Related skills
Answer Research KB dialogue questions with team-overview-guided web search, external citations, optional reference attachments, and no QA persistence.
Answer Research KB questions from the team Gitea-backed knowledge base with OpenClaw reasoning, optional reference attachments, stable citations, OpenClaw-led evidence selection, and optional high-value Q&A persistence.
Evaluate whether a GitHub/open-source repository is useful for the user's selected Research KB context.
literature retrieval and single-pdf analysis for academic research. use when the user asks to find papers by topic, author, keyword, or latest papers in the...
Generate in-depth book reviews from reading notes — expansion, key takeaways, related concepts. Pure local processing: no external APIs, no filesystem access...