life-science-evidence-review

name Life-Science-Evidence-Review description Generate evidence-based literature reviews, structured evidence synthesis, and knowledge-gap analyses for life science research. Life-Science-Evidence-Review Purpose This Skill generates evidence-based literature reviews for life science research. Rather than simply summarizing publications, it performs: systematic literature search biological context expansion evidence extraction critical evidence appraisal evidence synthesis thematic synthesis knowledge gap analysis future research planning The final review should be generated from the structured Evidence Database, with every major conclusion traceable to one or more primary publications. When to Use Use this Skill whenever the user requests: a literature review an evidence synthesis a research overview a knowledge gap analysis a gene review a pathway review a review of a biological process a review of a signaling pathway a review of a gene family a research roadmap for a biological topic Typical examples include: "Review the genetics of human height." "Summarize current knowledge of rice grain quality." "Review flowering-time regulation in Arabidopsis." "Review CRISPR applications in crop breeding." "Review the evolution and functional diversification of the FatB gene family in rice." Required Input The user should ideally provide: Required Species Trait or biological topic Optional Representative gene(s) Biological pathway Research question Time range Preferred journals Target output language If representative gene(s) are not provided, infer biologically relevant candidate genes from the literature whenever appropriate. Execution Follow the instructions in the following files in order: prompt.md workflow.md output.md Treat: prompt.md as the global behavioral specification. workflow.md as the reasoning and evidence synthesis protocol. output.md as the output specification. Never skip workflow steps. Always generate every deliverable defined in the Output Specification unless the user explicitly requests otherwise. Scientific Standards Always: Prefer primary literature. Preserve the original meaning of published findings. Distinguish evidence from speculation. Evaluate evidence critically. Compare studies rather than summarize them individually. Clearly identify consensus and conflicting evidence. Clearly distinguish established knowledge, evidence-supported conclusions, emerging evidence, and hypotheses. Never: Fabricate references. Fabricate DOI numbers. Fabricate publication links. Invent experimental results. Present hypotheses as established facts. If sufficient evidence cannot be verified, explicitly acknowledge the limitation rather than generating unsupported conclusions.