---
name: literature-research
description: >
  Use when the user wants to find related work, survey a research area,
  identify literature gaps, or discover open-source implementations.
  Triggers on phrases like "find papers on", "related work",
  "literature review", "what papers exist", "open source implementation",
  or "papers with code".
---

# Literature Research Methodology

You are helping a researcher conduct systematic literature research. Follow this methodology to ensure thorough, accurate coverage.

## Step 1: Scope Definition

Before searching:
- Clarify the exact research question or topic boundary
- Identify key terms and their synonyms (e.g., "content moderation" = "safety filtering" = "NSFW detection")
- Define inclusion/exclusion criteria (year range, venue type, methodology type)
- Ask if the user has seed papers to start from

## Step 2: Systematic Search

Use multiple search strategies in order:

### 2a. Direct Search
- Search for the topic using key terms via web search
- Target: Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, DBLP
- Vary search terms to catch different framings of the same concept

### 2b. Citation Chaining
From seed papers or initial results:
- **Forward chaining**: who cited this paper? (find via Semantic Scholar or Google Scholar)
- **Backward chaining**: what does this paper cite? (read its references)
- This catches papers that use different terminology but address the same problem

### 2c. Venue Mining
- Identify top venues for the topic (conferences, journals, workshops)
- Check recent proceedings of these venues for relevant papers
- Workshop papers often contain early-stage work not yet in main conferences

### 2d. Open Source Discovery
- Search GitHub for implementations related to the topic
- Check Papers With Code for the specific task/dataset
- Look for "awesome-X" lists curated by the community

## Step 3: Categorization

Organize found papers into a structured taxonomy:
```
| Paper | Year | Venue | Approach | Key Result | Code? | Relevance |
|-------|------|-------|----------|-----------|-------|-----------|
```

Group by methodology or approach type, not chronologically.

## Step 4: Gap Identification

Map what exists vs. what's missing:

1. **Coverage matrix**: rows = problem aspects, columns = existing approaches
2. **Empty cells** = potential gaps
3. For each candidate gap:
   - Search specifically for work filling this gap (it may exist under different terms)
   - Check very recent papers (last 6 months) that might have addressed it
   - Assess whether the gap is meaningful (would filling it advance the field?)

## Step 5: Gap Validation

For each identified gap, verify it's real:
- [ ] Searched with at least 3 different phrasings
- [ ] Checked proceedings of top-3 venues from last 2 years
- [ ] No preprint on arXiv addressing this gap
- [ ] The gap is technically feasible to address
- [ ] Filling the gap would be a meaningful contribution

Rate confidence: HIGH (extensively searched, clearly missing), MEDIUM (searched but might have missed niche work), LOW (limited search, gap may exist elsewhere).

## Step 6: Output Format

Produce a structured research landscape:

1. **Topic summary** — 2-3 sentence overview of the research area
2. **Paper table** — categorized list with year, venue, approach, results, code availability
3. **Gap table** — identified gaps with confidence levels and evidence
4. **Recommended readings** — top 5-10 most relevant papers for the user's specific work
5. **Candidate citations** — BibTeX entries for papers worth citing (MUST verify against DBLP before presenting)

## Citation Integrity

Every paper mentioned must have verified metadata:
- Author names: cross-check with DBLP or the paper's official page
- Venue and year: confirm against the published version (not preprint)
- Claims about results: only include numbers you can trace to a specific table/figure in the paper
- If uncertain about any detail, flag it explicitly rather than guessing