research-lit

Maps ML theory literature and writes a structured LITERATURE_SURVEY.md with gaps.

65|2|Updated Aug 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/DechenZhang/VALG-ML-Theory-Agent --skill research-lit-dechenzhang
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: research-lit
Source: https://github.com/DechenZhang/VALG-ML-Theory-Agent/tree/main/skills/research-lit
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/DechenZhang/VALG-ML-Theory-Agent --skill research-lit-dechenzhang

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Conducting a rigorous literature survey for an ML theory research direction is slow and error-prone: papers must be found across direct, foundation, and empirical scopes, deduplicated, classified by their actual theorem claims, and distilled into gap statements that downstream idea generation can trust. This Skill automates that survey and produces a single auditable LITERATURE_SURVEY.md artifact. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Structured theory search: Searches Direct Theory first per sub-target, then recursively falls back to Component Theory or Testbed Theory only on zero-hit scopes, with explicit paper-count budgets. - Analysis-target taxonomy: Organizes search around Optimization, Generalization, Expressive Power, and Implicit Bias families, with explicit Other buckets for nonstandard theorem properties. - Gap-oriented output: Writes LITERATURE_SURVEY.md with direct theory, foundation theory, empirical practice, and gap sections, where every gap states evidence, downstream relevance, and supported/uncertain status. - Use Case: Given a research direction like "generalization analysis of component A in algorithmic setting B", the Skill detects the two primary objects, searches convergence and generalization sub-targets across local PDFs and web sources, and produces a survey with per-sub-target gaps ready for perspective selection. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to run the literature survey for your research direction, for example: "Run research-lit on theoretical scaling laws of kernel regression and write LITERATURE_SURVEY.md."

Frequently Asked Questions about research-lit

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I run a literature survey for an ML theory research direction?

Invoke the skill with your research direction as the argument, and it normalizes the target, searches direct theory per sub-target, and writes LITERATURE_SURVEY.md. It detects primary objects, refines sub-targets from early retrieval signals, and records gaps per active sub-target.

What happens when no papers exist for my research topic?

On zero-hit scopes, the skill proposes a binary split into components and recurses under Component Theory, or falls back to object-free Testbed Theory for unsplittable scopes. Splits are reported as runtime consultations, and the run continues with the proposed or user-edited split.

Which literature sources does the survey search first?

It searches in priority order: Zotero, Obsidian notes, local PDF libraries under papers/ or literature/, web search, Semantic Scholar, and DeepXiv-style progressive reading. Unavailable optional sources are skipped silently and never cause failure.

How are papers classified into direct versus foundation theory?

Papers are classified by their actual theorem object and goal after reading, not by title wording. For multi-object inputs, a paper counts as Direct Theory only if it analyzes all named objects; object-conditioned foundations go to Component Theory and object-free canonical results to Testbed Theory.

Can empirical scaling-law papers count as theory evidence?

No. Papers whose scaling-law claims come mainly from fitting experimental results without an explicit theoretical setting are classified as Empirical Practice. Empirical evidence can strengthen a gap's importance but never serves as the sole basis for a formal theory gap.

What are the limitations of the automated literature survey?

Paper-count budgets are targets rather than hard guarantees, and coverage depends on source availability and search yield. The skill records absent areas honestly, marks gaps as supported or uncertain, and does not overclaim when the survey is inconclusive.