Literature Review Workflow in Obsidian (AI Summaries + Linked Notes)

What you will get

At the end of this workflow you will have:

• One note per paper (with consistent headings)
• One synthesis note linking everything together
• A short list of open questions for follow-up reading

If you are new to SystemSculpt, start here first: Getting Started.

Inputs (copy/paste)

Prepare this note block before you start so summaries stay grounded:

• Topic: what question you are trying to answer.
• Scope boundaries: what sources are in and out.
• Source list: PDF links or file names.
• Known assumptions: what you currently believe and need to validate.

Vault setup (recommended)

Create a folder structure like:

• Sources/Papers/ (PDFs or clipped text)
• Notes/Literature/ (your per-paper notes)
• Notes/Synthesis/ (topic synthesis notes)

Keep your seed note in Notes/Synthesis/ so it becomes the home base for the topic.

Step 1: Create the seed note

Create a note named something like Synthesis - <Topic>.md and add:

• A one-paragraph goal for the review
• The scope (what is in, what is out)
• A section for links to paper notes

Step 2: Summarize each paper into a structured note

For each paper, ask SystemSculpt to produce a note with:

• Summary (5 to 10 sentences)
• Key claims
• Methods
• Results
• Limitations
• Quotes worth keeping (only if allowed to quote)
• Tags (optional)

If you have embeddings enabled, you can speed this up by using semantic search to retrieve related notes while you write: Embeddings & Search.

Step 3: Extract questions and next reads

Prompt idea:

• "List open questions, missing evidence, and 3 next papers to read based on what we have so far. Keep it specific."

Save the output under an Open Questions heading in your synthesis note.

Step 4: Build the synthesis note (with links)

Ask SystemSculpt to:

• Group papers by theme
• Link to each paper note under the right theme
• Call out contradictions and uncertainty
• Suggest what evidence would resolve disagreements

Step 5: Use Agent Mode approvals for safe edits

When SystemSculpt proposes creating or editing notes, keep approvals on:

• Review the diff (what changed)
• Approve only what you want written
• Re-run with tighter instructions when outputs drift

Failure modes + fixes

• Failure mode: Summaries sound polished but lose methodological detail. Fix: Require a dedicated Methods and Limitations section for every paper note.
• Failure mode: The synthesis note becomes a list, not an argument. Fix: Force explicit agreements, disagreements, and unresolved questions headings.
• Failure mode: The model invents source claims not present in papers. Fix: Add "do not invent evidence" and reject unsupported claims in approvals.

Definition of done

I consider this workflow complete when:

• Every paper has one structured note with claims and limitations.
• The synthesis note explicitly links agreements, disagreements, and open questions.
• At least one next-read decision is documented with a reason.

Next step based on your intent

• If you want me to implement this research workflow for your team, apply here: AgentOps application.
• If you want to run it yourself in your vault, use SystemSculpt Pro pricing.

Related template

If you want a consistent structure for per-paper notes, start with the Obsidian Literature Note Template.