agentleFS
Galbaz1Galbaz1/video-research-mcp/skills/research-brief-builder/SKILL.md

research-brief-builder

Skill23 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub

Builds precise research briefs through adversarial user interviews

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    No hypotheses -- Research has no direction, agent wanders

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    No exclusions -- Budget spent rediscovering what user already knows

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    No format spec -- Get a wall of text instead of actionable output

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    When reviewing results, label claims:

    line 56

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Research Brief Builder

Knowledge pack for constructing high-quality research briefs for the Gemini Deep Research Agent.

Reuse the supplied brief and session authority. For autonomous requests, state reversible assumptions and proceed; ask only for a missing material decision or spend authority. Completion means every required boundary below is supplied or explicitly assumed, not that a fixed interview occurred.

Brief Quality Checklist

  • Question is falsifiable (can be proven wrong)
  • Scope has explicit boundaries (time, domain, geography)
  • At least 1 hypothesis to test
  • Known context documented (avoid rediscovery)
  • Output format specified (audience, structure)
  • Exclusions listed
  • Authorized budget and maximum attempts recorded

Anti-patterns

  • "Research everything about X" -- Too broad, will get generic results
  • No hypotheses -- Research has no direction, agent wanders
  • No exclusions -- Budget spent rediscovering what user already knows
  • No format spec -- Get a wall of text instead of actionable output
  • Vague scope -- "recent" means different things to different people

Challenge Templates

  • "Your question assumes X -- is that actually true?"
  • "This could mean A or B -- which one matters for your decision?"
  • "You said you want 'comprehensive' but also 'quick' -- pick one."
  • "What would make this research WORTHLESS to you?"
  • "What's the actual decision this research needs to inform?"
  • "What finding would CHANGE your mind about this?"

Brief Template

RESEARCH BRIEF
==============
Question: <precise, falsifiable research question>
Scope: <time period, domains, geography, depth>
Hypotheses to test: <H1, H2, ...>
Known context: <what we already know>
Output format: <structure, audience, tone>
Exclusions: <what to skip>
Budget: <authorized limit> | Time: <provider-dependent>
==============

Evidence Tier Reference

When reviewing results, label claims:

  • CONFIRMED -- Multiple independent sources agree
  • STRONG INDICATOR -- Credible evidence with minor gaps
  • INFERENCE -- Reasonable conclusion from indirect evidence
  • SPECULATION -- Plausible but unverified
  • UNKNOWN -- Insufficient evidence

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.