web-research-external
Skill0 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Produces structured research documents or implementation handoffs by searching external sources — library docs, web, APIs — for a given topic. Use when: "research how to use [library]", "find best practices for [topic]", "compare [options]", "look up [API/framework] documentation". NOT for codebase exploration (use project-exploration for that).
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-teachingSkill
- cf-pages-trespies-deploySkill
- compression-ritualSkill
- context-ingestionSkill
- decision-propagationSkill
- documentation-auditSkill
- era-architectureSkill
- file-managementSkill
- frontend-from-backendSkill
- handoff-protocolSkill
- health-auditSkill
- house-poc-builderSkill
- implementation-promptSkill
- iterative-scoutingSkill
- mcp-cloudflare-builderSkill
- mcp-server-builderSkill
- memory-gardenSkill
- multi-surface-strategySkill
- parallel-tracksSkill
- patient-learning-protocolSkill
- planning-with-filesSkill
- poc-tool-forgeSkill
- pre-implementation-checklistSkill
- process-extractionSkill
- product-positioningSkill
- project-explorationSkill
- release-specificationSkill
- repo-context-syncSkill
- repo-statusSkill
- research-modesSkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- seed-extractionSkill
- seed-librarySkill
- seed-to-skill-converterSkill
- semantic-clustersSkill
- skill-audit-upgradeSkill
- skill-creationSkill
- skill-maintenanceSkill
- spec-constellation-to-prompt-suiteSkill
- static-tool-verifySkill
- status-templateSkill
- status-writingSkill
- strategic-scoutSkill
- strategic-to-tactical-workflowSkill
- workflow-routerSkill
- workspace-navigationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 47
Do not use for local codebase exploration — use project-exploration for that.
- Distinctive: line 53
If focus, topic, or depth are not provided, guide the user through:
- Distinctive: line 82
Use WebFetch to pull official documentation, README, and API reference.
- Distinctive: line 94
Use WebSearch with current-year framing.
- Distinctive: line 106
Use all available research tools in sequence:
- Distinctive: line 124
If a source is unavailable, continue with remaining sources and note the gap explicitly.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Web Research External
Researches external sources — library documentation, web search, API references — and produces structured findings for decisions or implementation.
Description
Covers three research modes: library (API docs and usage patterns for a specific package), best-practices (recommended approaches, comparisons, anti-patterns via web search), and general (all available sources for comprehensive coverage). Output is either a chat summary, a dated research document, or an implementation handoff ready for a coding agent. This skill is distinct from project-exploration (local codebase) and research-synthesis (processing existing notes).
When to Use
- Looking up how to use a library or framework (npm, PyPI, crates.io, Go modules)
- Finding current best practices for a technology decision
- Comparing two or more approaches or tools
- Building implementation context before writing code
- Producing a research document to share with teammates or agents
Do not use for local codebase exploration — use project-exploration for that.
Workflow
Step 1: Clarify Intent
If focus, topic, or depth are not provided, guide the user through:
Research type:
- "How to use a library/package" →
libraryfocus - "Best practices for a task" →
best-practicesfocus - "General topic research" →
generalfocus - "Compare options/alternatives" →
best-practiceswith comparison framing
Topic: The specific library, concept, or question (e.g., "Prisma ORM connection pooling", "error handling in Python async").
Depth:
- "Quick answer" → shallow (essentials only)
- "Thorough research" → thorough (multiple sources, examples, edge cases)
Output format:
- "Summary in chat" →
chat - "Research document" →
doc(write to file) - "Handoff for implementation" →
handoff(structured YAML for coding agent)
Show a confirmation summary before executing:
Focus: library | Topic: "Prisma ORM" | Depth: thorough | Output: doc
Proceed?Step 2: Execute Research by Focus
Focus: library
Use WebFetch to pull official documentation, README, and API reference. Use WebSearch for usage examples.
1. WebFetch: official docs URL for the package
2. WebSearch: "{library} {topic} examples site:github.com OR site:stackoverflow.com"
3. WebSearch: "{library} changelog OR migration guide" (if version-specific)For thorough depth: add multiple semantic queries, grep for specific function/class names in examples, scrape additional documentation pages.
Focus: best-practices
Use WebSearch with current-year framing.
1. WebSearch: "{topic} best practices 2025"
2. WebSearch: "{topic} vs alternatives comparison"
3. WebSearch: "{topic} common mistakes anti-patterns"For thorough depth: add chain-of-thought comparison queries, recent developments search (last 3 months), and cross-reference findings from multiple sources.
Focus: general
Use all available research tools in sequence:
- WebSearch for library documentation and API references
- WebSearch for best practices and comparisons
- WebFetch specific documentation pages found in step 2 results
For thorough depth: run all three with expanded queries; cross-reference findings between sources; follow links for deeper context.
Step 3: Synthesize Findings
Combine results across all sources into:
- Key Concepts — Core ideas and terminology
- Code Examples — Working examples from documentation
- Best Practices — Recommended approaches
- Pitfalls — Common mistakes to avoid
- Alternatives — Other options considered
- Sources — URLs for all citations
If a source is unavailable, continue with remaining sources and note the gap explicitly.
Step 4: Write Output
Output: doc
Write to: research/YYYY-MM-DD-{topic-slug}.md
---
date: {ISO timestamp}
type: external-research
topic: "{topic}"
focus: {focus}
depth: {depth}
sources: [count]
status: complete | partial | failed
---
# Research: {Topic}
## Summary
{2-3 sentence summary of findings}
## Key Findings
### {Source category}
{Findings from each source}
### Code Examples
{Working examples found}
## Best Practices
- {Practice 1}
- {Practice 2}
## Pitfalls to Avoid
- {Pitfall 1}
## Alternatives Considered
| Option | Pros | Cons |
|--------|------|------|
## Sources
- [{Source 1}]({url1})Output: handoff
Write to: research/{topic-slug}-handoff.yaml
type: research-handoff
topic: "{topic}"
status: complete
findings:
key_concepts: [concept1, concept2]
code_examples:
- pattern: "{pattern name}"
code: |
// example code
best_practices: [practice1, practice2]
pitfalls: [pitfall1]
recommendations: [rec1, rec2]
sources:
- title: "{Source 1}"
url: "{url1}"
type: documentation | article | reference
implementation_notes: |
Recommended approach: ...
Key libraries: ...
Avoid: ...Output: chat
Return a structured summary in the conversation with key findings, code examples, and source URLs. No file written.
Step 5: Return Completion Summary
Research complete.
Topic: {topic}
Focus: {focus} | Depth: {depth}
Output: {path or "chat summary above"}
Sources: {N} sources cited
Key findings:
- {Finding 1}
- {Finding 2}
- {Finding 3}Output
A research document (.md) or implementation handoff (.yaml) with:
- Synthesized findings across all sources
- Working code examples
- Explicit source citations with URLs
- Status indicator (complete / partial / failed)
- Gap notes for any unavailable sources
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

