Lit Briefing

Core Rule

A briefing reports the state of the library against the argument — what came in, what is still open, and where the thesis outruns the evidence. The gaps it names are search directions (themes to go find real sources for), never fabricated sources to fill the hole. "The argument needs work on horizon-scaling of hallucinated tool calls and the library has none" is the honest output — not an invented citation that pretends the gap is closed. This is a read-only synthesis of vault/log.md, vault/index.md, and the summaries; it writes nothing except (optionally) the maintained gap list in the index.

When to Use

Invoke with /lit-briefing when:

• Resuming work after time away — "what did I ingest, what was I chasing?"
• Before a /literature-review session, to know which themes the synthesis can support and which it must flag as gaps.
• Planning a literature-search session — the gaps become the search queries.
• After a run of /lit-ingest, to step back and see whether the new sources actually moved the argument forward.

Read-only. The one persistent side effect is maintaining vault/index.md → ## Open gaps (relative to the thesis) so the gap list survives between sessions.

Process

Phase 1 — Load the argument and the timeline

1. Read MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Thesis, Contribution, and Key sources — the argument the library exists to support, and the spine references it must not misattribute.
2. Read vault/log.md — the append-only activity record. Identify the most recent entries (ingests, lints, prior briefings) since the last briefing, or over a sensible recent window.
3. Read vault/index.md — the current roster of sources, concepts, entities, and the standing "Open gaps" list.

Phase 2 — "Since last time": recent activity

From the tail of vault/log.md:

• Recently ingested sources — list them with cite key + one-line "what it establishes", pulled from each summary's ## Summary. Note status: (a fresh metadata-only page is an ingest that still needs the full text).
• Recent lint findings — if a /lit-lint ran, surface any unresolved orphans or contradictions it logged.
• Keep it to what actually changed — this is a "since last time" delta, not a full inventory (that is /lit-lint's job).

Phase 3 — Open follow-ups & citation-chaining leads

Sweep the Open questions / follow-ups sections of recently touched summaries (and any concepts/ "Open gap" fields):

• Citation-chaining leads — papers a source cites that are worth fetching ("backward-cite from [[doe2023tooluse]]"), or later work by an author already in the vault.
• Verification debts — [VALUE — verify] fields and metadata-only pages still awaiting full text.
• Threads — questions an ingest raised that no current source answers.

Each lead is a concrete next action, not a vague "read more."

Phase 4 — Gap analysis against the thesis

This is the heart of the briefing. For each theme the argument needs (derived from MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Thesis / Contribution / Key sources), check whether the library actually covers it:

• Covered — a read source in the vault supports it (name the cite key).
• Thin — only a metadata-only / skimmed page, or a single source carrying more weight than it can bear.
• Missing — no source in the library bears on it at all.

For every thin or missing theme, emit a search direction — what to look for, never a fabricated paper:

• Keywords / queries to run (e.g. "constrained decoding tool use", "self-consistency verification agents").
• Venues & years likely to hold it (e.g. NeurIPS / ICLR / ACL 2023–2025).
• Citation chaining from a paper already in the vault.

Maintain these in vault/index.md → ## Open gaps (relative to the thesis) so they persist. The loop stays honest: you fetch a result → /lit-ingest it → re-run the briefing; the skill never closes a gap by inventing a source.

Phase 5 — Assemble the briefing

Produce the tight briefing below. Keep it short — a briefing is read in under a minute. The gaps are formatted so they can be handed straight to /literature-review as search directions.

Output Format

# Lit-Briefing — 2026-06-03

## Since last time (3 ingests)
- [[doe2023tooluse]] — tool use works on single-turn QA (read)
- [[halluc2022]] — hallucination prevalent in LLMs (metadata-only — full text still needed)
- [[gate2024]] — pre-execution gate reduces hallucinated tool calls, one harness (read)

## Open follow-ups & citation-chaining leads
- Backward-cite from [[gate2024]] — it cites a multi-turn agent benchmark we lack.
- [[halluc2022]] is metadata-only — fetch the PDF to license its findings.
- Thread: does any source measure hallucinated-call rate vs. task horizon? (none yet)

## Gaps relative to the thesis
| Theme the argument needs | Library status | Search direction |
|--------------------------|----------------|------------------|
| Multi-turn agentic tool-call evaluation | missing | "multi-turn agent benchmark tool use", NeurIPS/ICLR 2023–2025 |
| Pre-execution vs. post-hoc verification | thin (gate2024 only) | "self-correction LLM agents", backward-cite from [[gate2024]] |
| Hallucinated-call rate vs. horizon | missing | "tool-call error rate task horizon", ACL 2024–2025 |

## Suggested next move
Fetch a multi-turn agentic eval benchmark (biggest unmet need for the thesis), /lit-ingest it,
then re-run /literature-review.

End by noting the count (covered / thin / missing) themes — the same honest gap framing /literature-review reports. Never present a gap as closed by a source you cannot point to.

Pairs With

• /literature-review — the direct consumer: the briefing's gaps become its search directions, and a covered theme tells it what it can synthesize from read sources.
• /lit-ingest — the action a follow-up or gap implies: fetch the real source, ingest it, re-brief.
• /lit-lint — run before briefing so orphans/contradictions do not pollute the gap picture; lint = structural health, briefing = argument coverage.
• MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — the source of truth for the thesis the gaps are measured against; if the thesis shifts, the gaps shift.

Notes

• Read-only, save for maintaining vault/index.md → ## Open gaps. The briefing reads the log and index; it does not ingest, lint, or edit sources/.
• A gap is a search direction, never a fabricated source. The cardinal rule applies: the honest output is "the library lacks X — here is how to find it," not an invented \cite.
• Distinguish three coverage states plainly — covered / thin / missing — so the author knows which themes the draft can lean on and which it must flag.
• Gap analysis against the thesis is Reasoner-tier synthesis (see CLAUDE.md → Model Selection); reading the log tail is mechanical.
• If the thesis itself has drifted (the gaps no longer match the argument), that is a finding worth surfacing — the briefing measures the library against MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md, so stale gaps can mean a stale map.