Agent skill

Systematic Review Screener

by aipoch in aipoch/medical-research-skills

Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Systematic Review Screener

skills CLI
$ npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill systematic-review-screener -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install aipoch/medical-research-skills systematic-review-screener --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/'scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/systematic-review-screener' .claude/skills/systematic-review-screener && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
systematic-review-screener
GitHub stars
1.9k
Token cost
~3k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,226 words
Files
6 (incl. scripts, references)
Skills in repo
578
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.

  • Works in 3 steps: CSV/TSV → PubMed MEDLINE → EndNote XML
  • Tasks that involve Literature review
  • SKILL.md covers Quick Check, Audit-Ready Commands, When to Use and Workflow, plus 16 more sections
  • Runs Python scripts from its folder; calls python

What it does

Systematic Review Screener is an agent skill from aipoch/medical-research-skills. Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.

Its SKILL.md is about 3k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 7 other files, including scripts and reference files (for example `POLISH_CHANGELOG.md`, `eval_report_systematic-review-screener_result.json` and `references/criteria_template.yaml`).

It sits in Research & Science, covering Literature review and ORMs and data access. It works with Prisma. The repository describes itself as: Hundreds of agent skills for medical research, including protocol design, data analysis, evidence insights, and academic writing. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Literature review
  • Tasks that involve ORMs and data access

Example prompts

  • “/systematic-review-screener”

Requirements

  • Python 3

Workflow steps

3 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. CSV/TSV
  2. PubMed MEDLINE
  3. EndNote XML

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 686e09d. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Ships 1 file in scripts/ (Python), which the agent can run.

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • python

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Systematic Review Screener loads about 3k tokens when it runs, and up to ~4.6k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 31 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,226 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~31
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~4.6k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); the scripts in this folder are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from aipoch/medical-research-skills at commit 686e09d, republished under its MIT licence (© aipoch). 1,226 words, ~3,008 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/systematic-review-screener/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 5 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
systematic-review-screener
description
Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.
license
MIT
author
AIPOCH

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Systematic Review Screener

Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.

Quick Check

Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution.

bash
python -m py_compile scripts/main.py

Audit-Ready Commands

Use these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths.

bash
python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --help
python scripts/main.py -h
python scripts/main.py --help

When to Use

  • Use this skill when the task needs Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.
  • Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format.
  • Use this skill when you need a documented fallback path for missing inputs, execution errors, or partial evidence.

Workflow

  1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work.
  2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported assumptions.
  3. Use the packaged script path or the documented reasoning path with only the inputs that are actually available.
  4. Return a structured result that separates assumptions, deliverables, risks, and unresolved items.
  5. If execution fails or inputs are incomplete, switch to the fallback path and state exactly what blocked full completion.

Overview

This skill screens academic abstracts against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, generating PRISMA-compliant outputs with decision rationale and confidence scores.

Technical Difficulty: High ⚠️ Manual verification recommended for final inclusion decisions.

Features

  • Multi-format Input: PubMed MEDLINE, EndNote XML, CSV/TSV
  • Criteria Matching: Configurable inclusion/exclusion rules
  • Confidence Scoring: 0-100% confidence for each decision
  • Conflict Detection: Flags abstracts requiring human review
  • PRISMA Export: Flow diagram data and screening log
  • Batch Processing: Handles large reference sets efficiently

Usage

Basic Screening
python
# Run with default settings
python scripts/main.py --input references.csv --criteria criteria.yaml
With PRISMA Export
python
python scripts/main.py --input references.xml --criteria criteria.yaml \
  --output results/ --prisma --format excel
Confidence Threshold
python
python scripts/main.py --input refs.txt --criteria criteria.yaml \
  --threshold 0.8 --conflict-only

Input Formats

1. CSV/TSV

Required columns: title, abstract (optional: authors, year, doi, pmid)

csv
title,abstract,authors,year
title,abstract,authors,year
2. PubMed MEDLINE

Standard .txt export from PubMed search.

3. EndNote XML

Export from EndNote with abstracts included.

Criteria File (YAML)

See references/criteria_template.yaml for complete example:

yaml
study_type:
  include:
    - "randomized controlled trial"
    - "systematic review"
  exclude:
    - "case report"
    - "letter"
    - "editorial"

population:
  include_keywords:
    - "adults"
    - "elderly"
  exclude_keywords:
    - "pediatric"
    - "children"

intervention:
  required:
    - "drug therapy"
    - "medication"

language:
  allowed: ["English"]
  
year_range:
  min: 2010
  max: 2024

confidence_threshold: 0.75

Output Files

FileDescription
screened_included.csvRecords passing all criteria
screened_excluded.csvRecords failing one or more criteria
conflicts.csvLow-confidence decisions requiring review
prisma_data.jsonPRISMA flow diagram counts
screening_log.jsonFull decision trail with rationale

PRISMA Workflow Support

Generates structured data for PRISMA 2020 flow diagram:

json
{
  "identification": {
    "database_results": 1250,
    "register_results": 45,
    "other_sources": 12
  },
  "screening": {
    "records_screened": 1307,
    "records_excluded": 1150,
    "full_text_assessed": 157,
    "full_text_excluded": 89
  },
  "included": {
    "qualitative_synthesis": 68,
    "quantitative_synthesis": 42
  }
}

Configuration

Environment Variables
text
export SCREENING_THRESHOLD=0.75  # Default confidence threshold
export BATCH_SIZE=100             # Records per batch
export MAX_WORKERS=4              # Parallel processing workers
Command Line Options
OptionDescriptionDefault
--inputInput file pathRequired
--criteriaCriteria YAML pathRequired
--outputOutput directory./output
--formatOutput format: csv/excel/jsoncsv
--thresholdConfidence threshold0.75
--prismaGenerate PRISMA dataFalse
--conflict-onlyExport only conflictsFalse
--batch-sizeProcessing batch size100

Decision Algorithm

  1. Keyword Matching: Exact and fuzzy keyword matching against title/abstract
  2. Inclusion Scoring: Points for each inclusion criterion matched
  3. Exclusion Check: Immediate exclusion if exclusion criterion detected
  4. Confidence Calculation: Weighted score based on keyword presence and clarity
  5. Conflict Flagging: Records with confidence < threshold flagged for manual review

Limitations

  • Not for Final Decisions: Tool provides recommendations; human review required for inclusion
  • Language Dependent: Optimized for English abstracts
  • Structured Abstracts: Performs better on structured abstracts (Background/Methods/Results/Conclusion)
  • Domain Specific: Criteria must be tailored to research question

References

  • references/criteria_template.yaml - Complete criteria configuration example
  • references/prisma_2020_checklist.pdf - PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines
  • references/sample_references.csv - Example input format

Version

Version: 1.0.0
Last Updated: 2026-02-05
Classification: Research Tool - Requires Human Verification

Risk Assessment

Risk IndicatorAssessmentLevel
Code ExecutionPython/R scripts executed locallyMedium
Network AccessNo external API callsLow
File System AccessRead input files, write output filesMedium
Instruction TamperingStandard prompt guidelinesLow
Data ExposureOutput files saved to workspaceLow

Security Checklist

  • No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • No unauthorized file system access (../)
  • Output does not expose sensitive information
  • Prompt injection protections in place
  • Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
  • Output directory restricted to workspace
  • Script execution in sandboxed environment
  • Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
  • Dependencies audited

Prerequisites

text
# Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics
  • Successfully executes main functionality
  • Output meets quality standards
  • Handles edge cases gracefully
  • Performance is acceptable
Test Cases
  1. Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
  2. Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
  3. Performance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time

Lifecycle Status

  • Current Stage: Draft
  • Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
  • Known Issues: None
  • Planned Improvements:
    • Performance optimization
    • Additional feature support

Output Requirements

Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant:

  • Objective or requested deliverable
  • Inputs used and assumptions introduced
  • Workflow or decision path
  • Core result, recommendation, or artifact
  • Constraints, risks, caveats, or validation needs
  • Unresolved items and next-step checks
Show full SKILL.md (508 more words)Show less

Error Handling

  • If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information.
  • If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment.
  • If scripts/main.py fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.
  • Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes.

Input Validation

This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of systematic-review-screener and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.

Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:

systematic-review-screener only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.

Response Template

Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests:

  1. Objective
  2. Inputs Received
  3. Assumptions
  4. Workflow
  5. Deliverable
  6. Risks and Limits
  7. Next Checks

If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.

When Not to Use

  • Do not proceed when required input files, identifiers, parameters, or context are missing — ask the user to provide them first.
  • Do not assume capabilities beyond this skill's declared scope when the user requests external operations or inferences.
  • Do not proceed without user confirmation when overwriting existing results, executing high-cost batch operations, or expanding task scope.

Required Inputs

FieldRequiredFormat/SourceExampleIf Missing
User task descriptionYesTextResearch question, writing goal, analysis objectiveStop and ask user to provide
Primary input materialDepends on taskText, file path, ID, table, or literaturePMID, PDF, CSV, DOCX, keywords, etc.Specify which material type is missing
Output preferenceNoTextLanguage, format, target journal, templateUse skill default format

Output Contract

  • Primary output: Structured result or target file aligned with this skill's objective.
  • Optional output: Intermediate check notes, issue list, supplementary suggestions, or generated file paths.
  • Format requirement: Unless the user specifies otherwise, prefer stable, reviewable Markdown or JSON; if the skill's bundled script requires a fixed format, use that format.
  • If partially complete: Must explicitly mark as PARTIAL and state which steps are completed and which remain.

Failure Handling

  • Missing critical input: Explicitly state which fields, files, or identifiers are missing and pause.
  • Script, template, or resource execution failure: Report the failing step, likely cause, and recovery suggestions — do not silently degrade.
  • Partial completion only: Return the verified portion first, then list remaining blockers and suggested next steps.

User Checkpoints

  • Before executing batch processing, overwriting files, long-running searches, or multi-stage generation, confirm scope and output format with the user.
  • Before proceeding when a key judgment is ambiguous, evidence is insufficient, or the workflow is entering the next stage, confirm with the user.

Quick Validation

  • Check that key scripts, templates, or reference file paths this skill depends on exist.
  • Check that the final output contains the core fields, sections, or files specified for this task.
  • Check that results clearly mark assumptions, limitations, and incomplete items.

© aipoch, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 5 other files (scripts, references) in scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/systematic-review-screener of aipoch/medical-research-skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • POLISH_CHANGELOG.md
  • eval_report_systematic-review-screener_result.json
  • references/criteria_template.yaml
  • references/sample_references.csv
  • scripts/main.py

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 686e09d

Compare with similar skills

Systematic Review Screener next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Systematic Review Screener compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Systematic Review Screener this skillaipoch/medical-research-skills1.9k—~3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Lit Searchluwill/research-skills862—~3.7kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Ma Search Bibliographyhtlin222/meta-pipe139—~2.1kAutomated safety check: NotesCustom licence
Meta AnalysisAperivue/medsci-skills333—~8.7kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Review PaperAperivue/medsci-skills333—~1.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Deep Researchbrycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.6k—~8kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence

Similar skills

  • Lit Search

    luwill/research-skills

    Runs an exhaustive time-windowed literature search over a research topic and delivers a quality-tiered DOI list plus a matching formatted reference list, with measurable recall (gold-set recall…

    862 GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes
  • Ma Search Bibliography

    htlin222/meta-pipe

    Conduct literature searches for meta-analysis using Python with uv, query PubMed and other databases, deduplicate results, and store round-based bibliographies with notes.

    139 GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated 18 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes
  • Meta Analysis

    Aperivue/medsci-skills

    A skill your agent uses when running a systematic review and meta-analysis, DTA or intervention.

    333 GitHub stars~8.7k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • Review Paper

    Aperivue/medsci-skills

    A skill your agent uses when writing a literature review article (narrative, scoping PRISMA-ScR or systematic).

    333 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • Deep Research

    brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

    Universal deep research agent team. An agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills.

    4.6k GitHub stars~8k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • I0

    brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

    Systematic Review Pipeline Orchestrator - Coordinates systematic literature review automation Manages the complete 7-stage PRISMA 2020 pipeline from research question to RAG system Delegates to…

    4.6k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from aipoch/medical-research-skills

All 578 skills in this repo
  • Academic Poster Generator

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Complete workflow for generating academic research posters from PDF literature; use when you need to extract paper content from PDFs and produce a LaTeX-based poster…

    1.9k GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Diagnostic Study Quality Assessment Quadas

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Analyzes clinical diagnostic accuracy studies for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool.

    1.9k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Exploratory Data Analysis

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Perform comprehensive exploratory data analysis on scientific data files across 200+ file formats.

    1.9k GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Iso Certification

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    A toolkit for preparing ISO 13485:2016 certification documentation for medical device QMS.

    1.9k GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Journal Skills

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Recommends target journals for manuscript submission by analyzing the paper topic/abstract and the journal distribution of similar PubMed literature; use when users ask for journal…

    1.9k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Latex Posters

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Creates academic-poster writing packages for LaTeX using beamerposter, tikzposter, or baposter.

    1.9k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Questions about Systematic Review Screener

What does Systematic Review Screener do?

Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support. Systematic Review Screener is an agent skill from aipoch/medical-research-skills. Automated abstract screening tool for systematic literature reviews with PRISMA workflow support.

When should I use Systematic Review Screener?

Systematic Review Screener fits situations like: tasks that involve Literature review; tasks that involve ORMs and data access.

How do I install Systematic Review Screener in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill systematic-review-screener -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/systematic-review-screener in aipoch/medical-research-skills) into .claude/skills/systematic-review-screener in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Systematic Review Screener in Codex?

Run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill systematic-review-screener -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/systematic-review-screener in aipoch/medical-research-skills) into .agents/skills/systematic-review-screener in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Systematic Review Screener in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill systematic-review-screener -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/systematic-review-screener, .gemini/skills/systematic-review-screener, .github/skills/systematic-review-screener and .opencode/skills/systematic-review-screener in your project.

What does Systematic Review Screener need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Systematic Review Screener needs Python for the scripts in its folder and the command-line tools its instructions call (python). Our summary lists: Python 3.

Does Systematic Review Screener access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Systematic Review Screener safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. The check reads SKILL.md only: the scripts in the folder are not scanned, so read them before running anything.

What licence does Systematic Review Screener use?

Systematic Review Screener is published under the MIT licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Systematic Review Screener use?

About 3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 12k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 1.6k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Systematic Review Screener?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Systematic Review Screener: Lit Search (luwill/research-skills, 862 stars), Ma Search Bibliography (htlin222/meta-pipe, 139 stars), Meta Analysis (Aperivue/medsci-skills, 333 stars) and Review Paper (Aperivue/medsci-skills, 333 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Systematic Review Screener?

aipoch (a GitHub organization) maintains it in aipoch/medical-research-skills, which has 1,937 GitHub stars. The repository holds 578 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 17, 2026.

Source: aipoch/medical-research-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.