| name | deep-research |
| description | Conduct a thorough literature search on a topic with verified citations. Use when the user types /deep_research, asks to "research a topic", "find papers on", or needs literature review. CRITICAL - Never fabricate citations. Every claim must have a verifiable source. |
Deep Literature Research
Conduct a thorough literature search on a topic with verified citations. CRITICAL: Never fabricate citations. Every claim must have a verifiable source.
When to Use
- Starting a new project (research core concepts)
- Exploring methodology options
- Understanding the current state of a field
- Finding prior work on a specific technique
Usage
/deep_research [topic]
/deep_research normalization methods for RNA-seq
/deep_research machine learning in proteomics
The 5-Step Literature Review Process
Follow this framework for rigorous, reproducible literature reviews:
1. DEFINE SCOPE → What are we looking for? Set boundaries.
2. SEARCH → Systematic, documented search across databases.
3. EVALUATE → Assess source quality and relevance.
4. SYNTHESIZE → Identify themes, patterns, and gaps.
5. DOCUMENT → Write findings with proper citations.
Execution Steps
1. Understand the Research Need (Define Scope)
If topic is vague, ask clarifying questions:
- "What specific aspect of [topic] are you most interested in?"
- "Are you looking for methodological approaches, theoretical background, or applications?"
- "Any specific time range? (e.g., last 5 years, seminal works)"
2. Generate Search Strategy
Break the topic into searchable concepts:
## Search Strategy for: [Topic]
### Core Concepts
1. [Primary concept] - synonyms: [alternatives]
2. [Secondary concept] - synonyms: [alternatives]
3. [Methodological aspect]
### Search Queries
- "[concept1] AND [concept2]"
- "[method] in [application domain]"
- "review [topic]" (for overview papers)
### Key Databases
- PubMed (biomedical)
- arXiv (computational, preprints)
- Google Scholar (broad)
- Semantic Scholar (AI-enhanced)
3. Evaluate Sources
Apply the ACRAP criteria to each source:
| Criterion | Questions to Ask |
|---|---|
| Authority | Who wrote it? What are their credentials? Institutional affiliation? |
| Currency | When published? Is it current for this field? (Generally <5 years, seminal works excepted) |
| Relevance | Does it directly address the research question? |
| Accuracy | Is it peer-reviewed? Are claims supported by evidence? |
| Purpose | Why was it written? Any funding bias or conflicts of interest? |
Quick Assessment:
- ✅ High quality: Peer-reviewed, reputable journal, clear methodology
- ⚠️ Use with caution: Preprints, conference papers, older works
- ❌ Avoid: Non-peer-reviewed, predatory journals, unsupported claims
4. Conduct Research
CRITICAL RULES:
- ✅ Only include claims with verifiable sources
- ✅ Format citations properly (Author et al., Year)
- ✅ Include DOI or URL when available
- ❌ NEVER fabricate or guess citations
- ❌ NEVER make up author names, years, or findings
- ✅ If no source exists, explicitly state: "Gap identified: No literature found on [specific topic]"
- ✅ If uncertain, say: "Limited sources found. Manual verification recommended."
5. Organize Findings
Structure the output as:
# Literature Review: [Topic]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of the field]
## Current State of the Field
### [Theme 1]
[Synthesized findings with citations]
Key findings:
- Finding 1 (Author et al., Year)
- Finding 2 (Author et al., Year)
### [Theme 2]
[Synthesized findings]
### Methodological Approaches
[What methods are commonly used]
### Gaps in the Literature
- Gap 1: [What's missing or unexplored]
- Gap 2: [Contradictions or debates]
## Seminal Works
[Important foundational papers that should be cited]
## Recent Advances (Last 2-3 years)
[Most current developments]
## Implications for This Project
[How this literature relates to the user's aims]
## References
[Full BibTeX entries for all citations]
6. Save Outputs
Save to .research/literature/:
[topic-slug].md- The literature summary[topic-slug].bib- BibTeX citations
Example:
.research/literature/
├── rna-seq-normalization.md
└── rna-seq-normalization.bib
7. Prompt Next Steps
After completing:
Literature review saved to .research/literature/[topic].md
Suggested next steps:
A) Run /write_background to draft your background section
B) Run /deep_research on another topic: [suggest related topic]
C) Review the findings and refine your project aims
Would you like to explore any of these sources in more detail?
Citation Format Standards
In-Text Citations
- Single author: (Smith, 2023)
- Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2023)
- Three+ authors: (Smith et al., 2023)
- Multiple citations: (Smith, 2023; Jones, 2022)
BibTeX Format
@article{smith2023keyword,
author = {Smith, John and Jones, Jane and Williams, Bob},
title = {Title of the Paper},
journal = {Journal Name},
year = {2023},
volume = {10},
number = {2},
pages = {123-145},
doi = {10.1234/example.doi}
}
Handling Uncertainty
When sources are limited:
⚠️ Limited sources found on [specific topic].
Available sources cover [related area] but not [specific aspect].
Recommend:
- Manual search in [specific database]
- Consultation with domain expert
- This may represent a gap in the field
When sources conflict:
📊 Conflicting findings in the literature:
- Position A: [claim] (Author1, Year)
- Position B: [opposing claim] (Author2, Year)
Current consensus appears to favor [position] based on [evidence].
When no sources found:
🔍 Gap identified: No peer-reviewed literature found on [topic].
This could mean:
- Novel research opportunity
- Need for different search terms
- Topic may be covered under different terminology
Suggested alternative searches: [alternatives]
Quality Checks
Before finalizing, verify:
- Every factual claim has a citation
- All citations are real and verifiable
- BibTeX entries are complete
- DOIs are included where available
- No made-up author names or publication details
- Gaps and limitations are explicitly stated
Related Skills
write-background- Use literature to draft background sectionnext- Get next suggested step