Run a scholarly literature review — procedure

Purpose

Use this procedure to run the Scholarly Literature Review Stack and produce one evidence-gated scholarly review output from sources you can actually inspect.

Use this procedure when you need one of these outputs:

• literature review
• evidence synthesis
• source comparison
• gap mapping
• annotated bibliography
• evidence table

Use this procedure in AI workflows when:

• you need a source-grounded scholarly review output rather than a general summary
• you need the model to stay within inspected sources
• you need disagreements, gaps, and limitations to remain visible
• you need a runnable workflow, not a formal systematic-review or PRISMA reporting workflow by default

Canonical links

• Policy: Scholarly Literature Review — policy
• System prompt template: scholarly-evidence-gate.system.txt
• Workflow prompt template: literature-review.user.txt
• Workflow prompt template: evidence-synthesis.user.txt
• Workflow prompt template: source-comparison.user.txt
• Workflow prompt template: gap-mapping.user.txt
• Workflow prompt template: annotated-bibliography.user.txt
• Workflow prompt template: evidence-table.user.txt
• Prompt templates index: Prompt templates

What to load

Load these assets in this order:

1. scholarly-evidence-gate.system.txt
2. exactly one workflow prompt template:
   • literature-review.user.txt
   • evidence-synthesis.user.txt
   • source-comparison.user.txt
   • gap-mapping.user.txt
   • annotated-bibliography.user.txt
   • evidence-table.user.txt

Do not load multiple workflow prompt templates in the same run unless you intentionally want to rerun the task separately for another output.

Inputs required

For any workflow in this stack, provide at least:

• the question, topic, claim, or source set
• the sources to use

Optional but useful:

• scope limits
• date limits
• inclusion or exclusion preferences
• audience or output constraints

Procedure

1) Choose the output first

Pick the single output you want before you run the prompt:

• literature review
• evidence synthesis
• source comparison
• gap mapping
• annotated bibliography
• evidence table

2) Load the evidence gate

Paste scholarly-evidence-gate.system.txt into the system/developer layer supported by your runtime.

3) Load one workflow prompt

Paste the matching user prompt template for the output you chose.

4) Add the task inputs

Fill in:

• the question, topic, claim, or source set
• the sources to use
• any optional scope or constraints that matter for this run

5) Run the prompt

Run the workflow once for the selected output.

6) Check the output boundary

Confirm that the output:

• states which sources were actually used
• stays within inspected sources
• keeps source-grounded findings separate from synthesis or summary
• makes disagreements, limitations, and evidence gaps visible when relevant

7) Rerun only if you need a different output

If you also need another output, rerun the task with a different workflow prompt template. Do not try to force multiple deliverables from one runner.

Quick check

A correct output from this stack should usually make all of the following visible:

• the question, topic, or claim being addressed
• the sources actually used
• the main source-grounded findings
• disagreements or meaningful differences where relevant
• gaps, uncertainty, or limitations where relevant

Output choices

Literature review

Use when you want a focused scholarly review with a short synthesis.

Evidence synthesis

Use when you want patterns, themes, or positions synthesized across sources.

Source comparison

Use when you want agreements, disagreements, and meaningful differences across sources.

Gap mapping

Use when you want to identify where the current evidence is thin, missing, inconsistent, or underexplored.

Annotated bibliography

Use when you want one source-specific annotated entry per source.

Evidence table

Use when you want one structured evidence row per source or another explicit unit of analysis.

Common failure modes

• Loading more than one workflow prompt template in one run
• Asking for multiple deliverables from one runner
• Providing a topic without providing usable sources
• Treating the output as a formal systematic review by default
• Letting synthesis drift beyond what the inspected sources support
• Hiding disagreement, weak evidence, or scope limits

Related indexes

• Policies: Policies
• How-to: How-to guides
• Prompt templates: Prompt templates