a452cd95b8
- Every workflow prompt now shows a plan and asks the user to confirm before executing - /autoresearch asks for execution environment (local, branch, venv, cloud) and confirms before looping - Writer agent and key prompts now generate charts (pi-charts) and diagrams (Mermaid) when data calls for it - Cite alphaXiv and Agent Computer in README and website homepage - Clear terminal screen before launching Pi TUI - Remove Alpha Hub GitHub link in favor of alphaxiv.org Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
17 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
17 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Run a literature review on a topic using paper search and primary-source synthesis.
|
|
args: <topic>
|
|
section: Research Workflows
|
|
topLevelCli: true
|
|
---
|
|
Investigate the following topic as a literature review: $@
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
1. **Plan** — Outline the scope: key questions, source types to search (papers, web, repos), time period, and expected sections. Present the plan to the user and confirm before proceeding.
|
|
2. **Gather** — Use the `researcher` subagent when the sweep is wide enough to benefit from delegated paper triage before synthesis. For narrow topics, search directly.
|
|
2. **Synthesize** — Separate consensus, disagreements, and open questions. When useful, propose concrete next experiments or follow-up reading. Generate charts with `pi-charts` for quantitative comparisons across papers and Mermaid diagrams for taxonomies or method pipelines.
|
|
4. **Cite** — Spawn the `verifier` agent to add inline citations and verify every source URL in the draft.
|
|
5. **Verify** — Spawn the `reviewer` agent to check the cited draft for unsupported claims, logical gaps, and single-source critical findings. Fix FATAL issues before delivering. Note MAJOR issues in Open Questions.
|
|
6. **Deliver** — Save exactly one literature review to `outputs/` as markdown. Write a provenance record alongside it as `<filename>.provenance.md` listing: date, sources consulted vs. accepted vs. rejected, verification status, and intermediate research files used.
|