medical-imaging-review
Medical Imaging AI Review
Build traceable review artifacts whose claims can be audited back to first sources. Report the actual project state and unresolved human gates. Do not promise editorial outcomes or describe an incomplete project as a completed review.
Scope and hard boundary
Support exactly four route tokens across three methodological families:
| User intent | Route token | Route |
|---|---|---|
| Interpret a field | narrative | Narrative review |
| Compare method families | method-survey | Method survey |
| Map available evidence and research gaps | scoping | Scoping review |
| Answer a focused question without statistical pooling | systematic | Systematic review with qualitative synthesis |
Do not perform a meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, individual-participant-data meta-analysis, or umbrella review with this skill. If the request requires pooled estimates, heterogeneity statistics, forest or funnel plots, review-overlap analysis, or review-level appraisal, stop and prepare a handoff to a specialized methods workflow. Do not approximate those methods with prose or simple averaging.
Read references/REVIEW_TYPES.md before collecting literature or drafting. Use only narrative, method-survey, scoping, or systematic as route tokens; systematic always means qualitative synthesis in this skill. Before evidence collection begins, a corrected route may be recorded with an explicit decision note. After collection begins, the project route is immutable: freeze the old project and initialize a new project for a different route, carrying forward only logged, provenance-preserving artifacts.