brycewang-stanford/parsifal-slr-guide
skills/43-wentorai-research-plugins/skills/research/methodology/parsifal-slr-guide/SKILL.md
Plan and manage systematic literature reviews with Parsifal platform
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research parsifal-slr-guideInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 20, 2026, 4:22 AM9.5s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- parsifal-slr-guide
- description:
- Plan and manage systematic literature reviews with Parsifal platform
- emoji:
- 📋
- category:
- research
- subcategory:
- methodology
- keywords:
- ["Parsifal", "systematic review", "SLR", "review protocol", "PICO", "research methodology"]
- source:
- https://github.com/vitorfs/parsifal
Parsifal Systematic Literature Review Guide
Overview
Parsifal is a web-based tool for planning and managing systematic literature reviews (SLRs) following established protocols (Kitchenham, PRISMA). It guides researchers through the complete SLR process: defining research questions, setting inclusion/exclusion criteria, planning search strings, and tracking the screening process. Open-source and self-hostable.
SLR Process with Parsifal
Phase 1: Planning
Define Research Questions
Structure questions using PICO framework:
- Population: What group/domain?
- Intervention: What technique/method?
- Comparison: Compared to what?
- Outcome: What results measured?
Example:
P: Software development teams
I: AI-assisted code review
C: Manual code review
O: Defect detection rate, review time
Research Questions:
RQ1: Does AI-assisted code review improve defect detection?
RQ2: What is the time savings compared to manual review?
RQ3: What types of defects are best detected by AI tools?
Set Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
IC1: Studies comparing AI vs manual code review
IC2: Published in peer-reviewed venues (2020-2026)
IC3: Reports quantitative metrics
Exclusion Criteria:
EC1: Grey literature / blog posts
EC2: Studies with fewer than 10 participants
EC3: Non-English publications
Phase 2: Search Strategy
Build Search String
("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning")
AND
("code review" OR "code inspection" OR "static analysis")
AND
("defect detection" OR "bug finding" OR "software quality")
Database Mapping
| Database | Adapted Query | Expected Results | |----------|--------------|-----------------| | Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY(...) | ~500 | | IEEE Xplore | querytext=... | ~300 | | ACM DL | [[Abstract: ...]] | ~200 | | Web of Science | TS=(...) | ~400 |
Phase 3: Selection
Screening Steps
- Remove duplicates — Match by DOI, title similarity
- Title screening — Quick relevance assessment
- Abstract screening — Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Full-text review — Detailed evaluation
Quality Assessment
Define quality criteria and scoring:
| Criterion | Score | |-----------|-------| | Clear research question stated | 0/0.5/1 | | Methodology described in detail | 0/0.5/1 | | Threats to validity discussed | 0/0.5/1 | | Results statistically analyzed | 0/0.5/1 | | Study replicable from description | 0/0.5/1 |
Phase 4: Extraction
Data Extraction Form
For each included paper, extract:
- Study ID
- Authors, Year, Venue
- Study type (experiment/case study/survey)
- Population size
- AI technique used
- Metrics reported (precision, recall, F1, time)
- Key findings
- Limitations noted
Phase 5: Synthesis
Report with PRISMA
Identification: 1,400 records
↓ Remove duplicates: -350
Screening: 1,050 titles/abstracts
↓ Exclude irrelevant: -900
Eligibility: 150 full-text assessed
↓ Exclude by criteria: -108
Included: 42 studies in final review
Self-Hosting Parsifal
git clone https://github.com/vitorfs/parsifal.git
cd parsifal
pip install -r requirements.txt
python manage.py migrate
python manage.py runserver
# Access at http://localhost:8000
SLR Best Practices
- Register protocol before starting (PROSPERO for health, OSF for others)
- Two independent reviewers for screening to reduce bias
- Track inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa > 0.8)
- Document deviations from the original protocol
- Use PRISMA checklist for reporting completeness
References
- Parsifal
- Kitchenham, B. & Charters, S. (2007). "Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering."
- PRISMA Statement
- PROSPERO Registry
Related Skills
brycewang-stanford/thematic-analysis
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Conduct rigorous thematic analysis (TA) of qualitative data following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Use whenever the user mentions 'thematic analysis', 'TA', 'Braun and Clarke', 'qualitative coding', 'identifying themes', or asks for help analysing interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, or transcripts to identify patterns. Also trigger for questions about inductive vs theoretical coding, semantic vs latent themes, essentialist vs constructionist epistemology, building a thematic map, or writing up a qualitative findings section. Covers all six phases, the four upfront analytic decisions, the 15-point quality checklist, and the five common pitfalls. Produces a Word document write-up and an annotated thematic map. Does NOT cover IPA, grounded theory, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, or narrative analysis — use a different method for those.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/slr-prisma
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/running-placebo-analysis
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Performs placebo-in-time sensitivity analysis with hierarchical null model and optional Bayesian assurance. Use when checking model robustness, verifying lack of pre-intervention effects, or estimating study power.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/running-causalpy-experiments
data-ai
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Fit, summarize, plot, and interpret a chosen CausalPy experiment. Use after the causal method has been selected, including when configuring PyMC/sklearn models and scale-aware custom priors.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026