Skip to main content
Point Anara at a folder of papers and ask for the full literature review. Anara reads across the whole library, organizes the field by theme, and drafts a multi-section chapter with inline citations linked to source passages. Every claim traces back to a specific passage you can click through to verify. For when you have the sources and the argument, and need the whole review drafted end-to-end so you can start editing.

​
1. Describe the task

You have the papers. You have a sense of what the chapter needs to argue. Writing the review from scratch means working through every paper, organizing them into themes, drafting each section, and rechecking what each source actually says before you commit to a claim. It is a multi-week job for one person. Anara runs the full review in one pass. It reads across the folder you point it to, clusters the literature by theme, identifies where papers agree and where they diverge, and writes a full chapter organized around the argument you named. Each claim carries an inline citation linked to the specific passage in the source PDF, not to the paper as a whole. When the draft says that two papers conflict on measurement strategy, there are clickable citation badges showing you exactly where in each paper that position appears. The citations are real. They come from the text you uploaded. Anara will not generate a reference to a paper you do not have, and it will not blend two papers’ arguments into one composite claim that neither of them actually makes. Where it cannot find direct support for a claim in your library, it flags the gap rather than filling it in. Here a PhD student in environmental policy has forty-two papers organized in a folder and needs the full literature review chapter for her dissertation on EU climate adaptation governance. 
Write the literature review chapter for my dissertation on EU climate adaptation governance. My papers are in the folder "Climate Adaptation Policy" (42 papers).

Organize the chapter around four themes: (1) how national adaptation plans are framed in the literature, (2) the relationship between national plans and EU cohesion funding, (3) sub-national implementation variation, (4) existing debates about policy effectiveness.

The chapter should argue that the current academic consensus underestimates implementation gaps at the sub-national level. Build toward that argument across the four themes. Target 4,000 to 5,000 words.

Use only papers in my library. For every claim, include an inline citation to the specific passage. Flag any claim where you cannot find direct support in the folder so I can decide whether to soften it or find a source.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • A folder containing the papers you want the review drafted from.
Optional context
  • The argument you want the chapter to build toward. Anara writes toward it rather than producing a neutral overview.
  • The thematic structure you want the chapter to follow. Without this Anara will surface its own structure from clustering the library.
  • Target word count and the register of your field or journal. Helps Anara match expected depth and density.
  • Any papers in the folder that are foundational and should carry more weight than others.

​
3. What Anara creates

A full literature review chapter drafted in one pass: a framing introduction, thematic sections organized around the structure you named or the one Anara surfaces from your library, transitions between themes, and a concluding section that lands the argument. Every claim carries a passage citation you can click to verify in the source PDF. Where the library does not support a claim Anara wanted to make, it flags the gap inline so you can decide whether to find the source or adjust the argument. This is a first draft, not a finished chapter. You will revise it — tightening arguments, expanding thin sections, cutting what does not serve the chapter. The value is that you are editing a structured, cited draft instead of starting from a blank page with forty-two PDFs open.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Tighten the argument in one section

When a section hedges where it should commit, or buries the point you most want to make. 
The section on sub-national implementation is too cautious. Rewrite it to argue more directly that the literature systematically under-measures local variation. Keep every claim tied to a passage citation.

​
Expand one theme with more evidence

When a theme reads thin relative to the others and you know the library has more on it. 
The section on EU cohesion funding is shorter than the others. Find every passage in my library that discusses how cohesion funds are allocated to adaptation projects and expand this section to match the depth of the others.

​
Generate the reference list

When the draft is structurally close to final and you need the bibliography. 
Generate a reference list for every paper cited in this chapter, formatted in APA 7. Only include papers actually cited in the draft.

​
Restructure around a different argument

When you read the draft and realize the chapter should argue something different. 
I want to reframe the chapter around institutional capacity rather than funding alignment. Restructure the four sections so they build toward that argument, keep the citations tied to passages, and flag any sections where the evidence in my library no longer supports the new framing.

​
Save the draft as a note

When you are ready to move the draft out of chat and into the editor. 
Save this chapter as a note called "Literature Review Draft: Climate Adaptation." I will continue editing it there with my library still in scope.

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

Include “use only papers in my library” in every literature review prompt. Without that constraint Anara may supplement your folder with papers from its academic index, and those citations will not have the clickable passage links you need for verification. Name the argument you want to support and the thematic structure you want followed. A prompt that says “organize the chapter around these four themes and build toward this argument” produces a tighter draft than “write a literature review on X.”

​
Generate the chapter in one pass, then iterate section-by-section

Anara is built to run the full review end-to-end rather than paragraph-by-paragraph. Ask for the whole chapter in one prompt, then use follow-up prompts to tighten specific sections, expand thin ones, or restructure around a different argument. This is faster than drafting each section in isolation and produces a more internally coherent chapter because Anara has the whole structure in view at once.

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara spots where papers take different positions on the same point, including across papers you read months apart. When the draft flags a contradiction, check both passages before deciding whether to keep it. Sometimes the contradiction is real and worth naming in your review. Sometimes it is a framing difference that reads as substantive at the passage level but not in context. You know which papers carry the most weight in your field; tell Anara if it is leaning on a minor study when a more authoritative one is in the folder.

​
What to do with the output next

Save the draft as a note and edit it in the note editor with your library still in scope so you can search for additional support as you revise. When the draft is close to final, use the claim-verification workflow to audit it claim by claim, checking that each sentence still matches the passage you are citing. Once the draft is clean, generate your reference list from the cited documents. If your thesis template requires a DOCX, export from the note editor when the draft is structurally complete.