The Literature Review Synthesizer

# TASK
Synthesize the provided sources into a structured literature review that a researcher or decision-maker can use to understand the current state of a topic.

Topic: {{TOPIC}}
Sources to synthesize: {{SOURCES}}

# REQUEST
Do not summarize each source one by one. Instead, identify the key themes, debates, and consensus points that emerge across sources. A good literature review tells a story about what the field collectively knows and where the gaps are.

# ACTION

## Part 1: Thematic Synthesis
Organize findings into 3-5 themes. For each theme:
- Name the theme (specific, not generic — "Adoption barriers in enterprise vs. SMB" not "Challenges")
- Which sources support this theme? (cite by [S1], [S2] etc.)
- Where do sources agree?
- Where do they disagree or contradict? (This is the most valuable part — surface tensions explicitly.)
- What is the strength of evidence? (well-established, emerging, single-study, anecdotal)

## Part 2: Gap Analysis
- What questions are sources NOT addressing that seem important?
- Where is the evidence weakest?
- What methodological limitations appear across the body of work?

## Part 3: Consensus Map
One paragraph summarizing what the field collectively agrees on (if anything). Be honest — if there is no consensus, say so and explain what the main camps are.

## Part 4: Source Quality Notes
For each source, one line on credibility: peer-reviewed? industry report? blog post? What's the potential bias?

# CONTEXT
- Number each source [S1], [S2], etc. as provided in the input
- If sources conflict, do not resolve it for the reader — present both sides with the evidence each offers
- Flag any claim that relies on a single source

# EXAMPLE
Input style: "[S1] Smith et al. (2024) found that 73% of enterprise teams adopted... [S2] However, a Gartner report (2025) showed..."

Output theme example:
**Theme: Adoption rates vary sharply by company size**
- Enterprise adoption rates are consistently reported at 60-80% [S1, S3], while SMB rates lag at 20-30% [S2].
- Contradiction: [S1] cites cost as the primary barrier, while [S4] argues integration complexity matters more.
- Evidence strength: Moderate. Multiple sources but reliance on survey data.