> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/getcompanion-ai/feynman/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Literature Review

> Run a structured literature review with primary-source synthesis, consensus mapping, and gap analysis.

The literature review workflow produces a structured survey of the academic landscape on a given topic. It focuses on mapping the state of the field — what researchers agree on, where they disagree, and what remains unexplored — and delivers a cited, verified output to `outputs/`.

## Invocation

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="CLI">
    ```bash theme={null}
    feynman lit "<topic>"
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="REPL">
    ```
    /lit <topic>
    ```
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

**Examples**

```bash theme={null}
feynman lit "scaling laws for language model performance"
feynman lit "diffusion models for protein structure prediction"
```

```
/lit mechanistic interpretability survey
/lit "retrieval-augmented generation benchmarks"
```

## Workflow stages

<Steps>
  <Step title="Plan">
    The lead agent outlines the review scope: key questions, source types to search (papers, web, repositories), time period, expected sections, and a small task ledger with a verification log.

    The plan is written to `outputs/.plans/<slug>.md`. The lead agent presents the plan and waits for your confirmation before proceeding.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Gather">
    For wide sweeps, the `researcher` subagent is used for delegated paper triage before synthesis. For narrow topics, the lead agent searches directly.

    Researcher outputs are saved to `<slug>-research-*.md` files. Assigned tasks are never silently skipped — each is marked `done`, `blocked`, or `superseded`.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Synthesize">
    Findings are organized into three categories: consensus, disagreements, and open questions. Where useful, concrete next experiments or follow-up reading suggestions are proposed.

    Quantitative comparisons across papers are rendered as charts using `pi-charts`; taxonomies and method pipelines use Mermaid diagrams. Before finishing the draft, every strong claim is swept against the verification log and downgraded if it is inferred or single-source on a critical point.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Cite">
    The `verifier` subagent adds inline citations to the draft and verifies every source URL.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Verify">
    The `reviewer` subagent checks the cited draft for unsupported claims, logical gaps, zombie sections (text that references material no longer in scope), and single-source critical findings.

    * **FATAL** issues are fixed before delivery. If FATAL issues are found, one additional verification pass is run after fixes.
    * **MAJOR** issues are noted in Open Questions.
    * **MINOR** issues are accepted.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Deliver">
    The final literature review is saved to `outputs/<slug>.md`. A provenance record is written alongside it at `outputs/<slug>.provenance.md`.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## Outputs

| Artifact                    | Path                           |
| --------------------------- | ------------------------------ |
| Research plan               | `outputs/.plans/<slug>.md`     |
| Intermediate research files | `<slug>-research-*.md`         |
| Final literature review     | `outputs/<slug>.md`            |
| Provenance record           | `outputs/<slug>.provenance.md` |

### Provenance record

The `<slug>.provenance.md` sidecar records:

* Date of the run
* Sources consulted vs. accepted vs. rejected
* Verification status
* Intermediate research files used

<Note>
  Every `/lit` output requires a `.provenance.md` sidecar. This is enforced by the workspace contract in `AGENTS.md`.
</Note>

## Subagents used

| Subagent     | Role                                                                                         |
| ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `researcher` | Gathers and triages source material when the sweep is wide enough to benefit from delegation |
| `verifier`   | Adds inline citations and verifies source URLs                                               |
| `reviewer`   | Checks the cited draft for logical gaps and unsupported claims                               |

## When to use `/lit`

Use `/lit` when you need a map of the research landscape rather than a deep dive into one specific question. It is particularly useful when:

* Starting a new research project and needing to understand what has already been done
* Preparing a related work section for a paper
* Evaluating whether a research direction is sufficiently novel
* Identifying open problems in a field

<Tip>
  For a deeper investigation of a single focused question, use [Deep Research](/workflows/deep-research) instead.
</Tip>

## Related

* [Deep Research](/workflows/deep-research) — thorough multi-agent investigation on a specific question
* [Source Comparison](/workflows/compare) — structured agreement/disagreement matrix across sources
* [Paper Draft](/workflows/draft) — turn review findings into a paper-style draft