Write the search-strategy section of your methods

What you get

The paragraph that says exactly what you searched, with which filters, on what date, returning how many records — written from a log rather than reconstructed from memory weeks later.

Who it’s for

Anyone publishing a review, meta-analysis, or scoping study. Also anyone who has been asked by a reviewer to “provide the full search strategy” and discovered they cannot.

Why this is worth automating

Search strategies are almost always written last, from half-remembered queries, after the interesting work is done. The result is a paragraph that does not reproduce the corpus it claims to describe — which reviewers increasingly check. If the agent logs each call as it runs, this section costs nothing and is actually true.

What to log, as you go

Field	Why a reviewer wants it
Query text, verbatim	The only way anyone reproduces your set
Every filter, exactly as sent	`study_types`, `human`, `year_min`, `sjr_max` all change the result set
Date the search ran	Literature moves; a search has an as-of date
Records returned per query	Pre-deduplication totals for the flow diagram
Records after deduplication	Reported separately from the above
Pages walked	Shows whether you exhausted the result set or took page one
Any failed or retried call	A gap in coverage you must disclose

The prompt

You are writing the search-strategy subsection of a methods section from the
log below. Write prose, not a table — journals want a reproducible narrative.

Cover, in this order:
1. The source searched, named precisely, with the date the search was run.
2. The query set. Give the queries verbatim; do not paraphrase them.
3. Every filter applied, with the value used and one clause on why. A filter
   with no stated rationale reads as arbitrary.
4. How records were deduplicated and on what key.
5. The counts: records identified, duplicates removed, records screened.
6. Any limitation: failed searches, truncated result sets, plan-imposed caps
   on returned results, or coverage restricted to a subset of the literature.

Rules:
- Use only the log. If a field is missing, write [NOT RECORDED] rather than
  reconstructing it — an invented search strategy is worse than an incomplete one.
- Do not describe the search as comprehensive or exhaustive unless the log
  shows every query was paginated to completion.
- State plainly that this was one search source and name any others used
  separately.

Log:
[PASTE THE AUDIT LOG]

Getting the filter rationale right

Reviewers reject filters that look like convenience. Each one needs a defensible reason:

study_types — the designs that can answer the question, not the ones that returned pleasing results
human=true — scope of the review, stated in the question
year_min — tie it to an event, a guideline change, or a method’s introduction, not to a round number
sjr_max — quality thresholds are contestable; say why the cut is where it is
exclude_preprints — a real methodological choice with a cost either way; justify the direction

Audit requirements

This use case is the audit log, rendered as prose. Follow the grounding rules, and keep the machine-readable table as a supplement — many journals now accept it as an appendix, which is stronger than the paragraph alone.

What to check before you trust it

Reproduce your own corpus from the paragraph. If you cannot, a reviewer cannot either, and that is the entire test.
Check for [NOT RECORDED]. Each one is a real gap. Fill it by re-running, not by remembering.
Do not claim comprehensiveness you did not achieve. A truncated sweep described as exhaustive is a correctable error before submission and a serious one after.

Build a PRISMA-ready search corpus

The sweep that generates this log.

Screen abstracts against inclusion criteria

Where the exclusion reasons come from.

Best practices

Grounding rules and the audit-log format.

All use cases

Browse the gallery by persona.

Overview

Use cases

Write the search-strategy section of your methods

What you get

Who it’s for

Why this is worth automating

What to log, as you go

The prompt

Getting the filter rationale right

Audit requirements

What to check before you trust it

Build a PRISMA-ready search corpus

Screen abstracts against inclusion criteria

Best practices

All use cases

​What you get

​Who it’s for

​Why this is worth automating

​What to log, as you go

​The prompt

​Getting the filter rationale right

​Audit requirements

​What to check before you trust it

​Related

Build a PRISMA-ready search corpus

Screen abstracts against inclusion criteria

Best practices

All use cases

What you get

Who it’s for

Why this is worth automating

What to log, as you go

The prompt

Getting the filter rationale right

Audit requirements

What to check before you trust it

Related