Define a search scope, organize literature and evidence, and write a sourced review.
Literature reviews done to method — systematic, scoping or narrative. Define the question and search plan, retrieve across academic sources, screen records in and out with counts at each stage, deduplicate and merge by DOI and identifiers, extract per-study evidence tables, synthesize into text and check citations against sources. The queries and eligibility criteria stay in the documents so anyone can re-run them.
Citation checking works only against records already retrieved: what can be verified is verified, what can't is marked missing, an unreachable database is named rather than glossed, and nothing is paraphrased from text that was never fetched.
The deliverable is a full review kit in your workspace: protocol, screening record, evidence tables and a drafted review.
Examples describe the request and the shape of the expected deliverable; they are not completed run results.
Systematic review for 'effects of dry farming on soil bulk density': search plan and in/exclusion criteria first, then dedup and screen, with counts at each stage.
A re-runnable protocol, screening results with counts and the corpus; unreachable sources named, not glossed.
Verify every citation in this draft against the retrieved records; list title/author/year mismatches and mark anything unsourced as missing.
A per-citation verification table with suggested fixes; missing fields stay missing — no fabricated pages or years.
iOS · Android
iOS
Android
MIT
MIT (root LICENSE.md)
MIT at the pinned upstream revision; full license and per-file adaptation/asset audit are preserved in references/licenses/. Floe additions and synthetic fixtures are identified separately.
Publication commit 25e07dbeeb, audited source 84c524b6fb; catalog digest iOS 46196ba57ed7… · Android 16de89d019e2….
Version records ship with the signed catalog; the target and released versions are shown below.
