Install
$ agentstack add skill-kdevos12-alkyl-lit-rescue ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Lit-Rescue — Literature-Grounded Problem Solving
When to invoke this skill:
- No confident answer exists from training knowledge
- The problem involves a specific algorithm, parameter, protocol, or library behavior that could be misremembered
- Previous attempts at solving the problem have been inconsistent or failed
- The question is novel, niche, or at the edge of a domain
- The user is debugging something that "shouldn't happen"
Rule: If there is >20% chance the answer could be fabricated or outdated → invoke this skill first.
Step 1 — Classify the Problem
Identify the query type before formulating search queries:
| Type | Keywords | Primary MCP | |------|----------|-------------| | METHOD | "which algorithm", "best approach for", "how to compute X" | Perplexity → bioRxiv | | PARAM | "what value for", "typical hyperparameters", "threshold for" | Perplexity → PubMed | | BUG | "why does X fail", "unexpected behavior", "error in library" | Perplexity only | | THEORY | "physical basis of", "why does X work", "derivation" | PubMed → bioRxiv | | PROTOCOL | "standard procedure", "step-by-step for", "pipeline for" | bioRxiv → PubMed | | BENCHMARK | "comparison of methods", "state of the art for", "which is better" | bioRxiv → PubMed | | DOMAIN | highly specialized jargon or niche subfield | Perplexity → PubMed |
Multiple types can apply — activate each relevant search.
Step 2 — Formulate Queries
Load references/perplexity-prompts.md if Perplexity MCP is available.
Otherwise, construct queries following these principles:
- Be maximally specific — include library name + version, domain, and exact task
- Ask for citations — request DOIs, paper titles, or package documentation references
- Anchor to peer-reviewed content — explicitly exclude opinion/blog content for scientific questions
- Specify recency — for fast-moving fields, constrain to last 2–3 years
Step 3 — Execute Search Waterfall
Run MCPs in this order (stop when sufficient evidence found):
A — Perplexity (if available)
Check if mcp__perplexity tools are accessible. If yes, use the prompts from references/perplexity-prompts.md.
Perplexity covers: documentation, GitHub issues, StackOverflow, technical blogs, and papers. Best for BUG and METHOD types.
B — bioRxiv / medRxiv MCP (always available)
bioRxiv.search_preprints(
query="[core concept] [method/tool] [domain]",
date_range="2022-2026", # recency matters for methods
limit=10
)
Use for: recent methods papers, benchmarks, protocols, negative results.
Refine with category filter if domain is clear (e.g., category="bioinformatics" or "biochemistry").
For a promising hit, fetch full abstract + DOI:
bioRxiv.get_preprint(doi="10.1101/XXXX")
C — PubMed MCP (always available)
PubMed.search_articles(
query="[concept] [method] [organism/domain]",
max_results=10,
sort="relevance" # or "date" for recent work
)
PubMed.get_article_metadata(pmid="XXXXXXXX")
Use for: established methods, clinical/biological protocols, theoretical foundations.
For methods specifically: add "protocol" OR "method" OR "algorithm" to the query.
For benchmarks: add "comparison" OR "benchmark" OR "evaluation" to the query.
Step 4 — Synthesize Results
After collecting hits, apply this synthesis protocol:
4.1 — Extract method/answer
State the answer as found in literature. Do not infer beyond what the sources say.
4.2 — Cite properly
Every claim derived from literature must carry a citation:
[Author et al., YEAR] — DOI: 10.XXXX/XXXXX
or
[bioRxiv YEAR-MM-DD] — DOI: 10.1101/XXXX
Never cite URLs. Always use DOIs when available.
4.3 — Rate confidence
★★★ — Multiple independent peer-reviewed sources agree
★★☆ — One peer-reviewed source or multiple preprints
★☆☆ — Single preprint or indirect evidence
☆☆☆ — No direct source found (see Step 5)
4.4 — Flag limitations
Note explicitly:
- Whether the source is peer-reviewed or a preprint
- Recency (methods older than 5 years may have superseded alternatives)
- Whether the source matches the exact library version / domain in question
Step 5 — Honest Reporting
If evidence is found (★★☆ or better): Present the answer with citations. Note any caveats.
If evidence is partial (★☆☆): Present what was found, state clearly that evidence is thin, and describe what would be needed to confirm.
If no evidence found (☆☆☆):
⚠️ LIT-RESCUE NEGATIVE RESULT
Searched: [list of queries and MCPs used]
Result: No peer-reviewed or preprint source found for [specific question].
Options:
1. Reformulate the question — the concept may use different terminology
2. Consult domain-specific documentation directly (package docs, official manual)
3. Run an empirical test (write a minimal script to probe the behavior)
4. Ask a domain expert or post to the relevant community forum
I will NOT speculate without a source.
This negative result is itself valuable — it tells the user that this is an open question or requires empirical investigation.
Decision Tree
Problem encountered
│
├─ Is the answer confidently known from verified knowledge?
│ └─ Yes → answer directly (don't invoke this skill)
│ └─ Uncertain → continue
│
├─ Classify type (Step 1)
│
├─ Is it a BUG/implementation question?
│ └─ Yes → Perplexity first (broader web coverage)
│ └─ No → bioRxiv + PubMed first
│
├─ Is the field fast-moving (ML, comp bio, cheminformatics)?
│ └─ Yes → bioRxiv (preprints = 6–18 months ahead of journals)
│ └─ No → PubMed (peer-reviewed = more reliable for established fields)
│
└─ Synthesize (Step 4) → Report honestly (Step 5)
Related Skills
chem-brainstorm— for comp chem problems, run this before lit-rescue to check local toolsscientific-skills:literature-review— for systematic multi-paper literature analysisscientific-skills:pubmed-database— for complex PubMed query strategiesscientific-skills:biorxiv-database— for preprint-focused searches
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Kdevos12
- Source: Kdevos12/ALKYL
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.