big-research-analysis
Skill13 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Carry out or inspect authorized research analysis, proofs and interpretations with traceable artifacts, uncertainty, counterevidence and method-appropriate limits.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- HaoYangJin/Big-Researchword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- HaoYangJin/Big-Research★ 13100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- big-research-designSkill
- big-research-reviewSkill
- big-research-scoutSkill
- big-research-setupSkill
- big-researchSkill
- big-research-writingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Read the protocol, selected methods, actual materials and available tools.
- Distinctive: line 10
Use authorized client execution tools for actual programs.
≈ “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
Investigate and interpret
Read the protocol, selected methods, actual materials and available tools. Record exploratory changes; do not silently alter confirmatory comparisons after seeing outcomes. Do not execute uninspected external code or assume a recorded command was run.
Use authorized client execution tools for actual programs; the workspace only records outputs. Save commands, environment, parameters/seeds where applicable, source/configuration, raw outputs and errors. Keep planned, failed and executed runs separate. Preserve negative results without favorable-seed selection.
For quantitative work, inspect independence, missingness, confounding, leakage, matched budgets and uncertainty. For qualitative or interpretive work, trace analysis to excerpts and context, preserve memos, reflexivity and disconfirming cases. For theory, expose proof steps, assumptions and counterexample searches; finite code checks do not establish universal proof.
Separate observations, interpretation and recommendations. Link bounded claims directly to eligible evidence and relevant contradictions. A documented interpretation is not a universal fact. Save actual artifacts, concerns and limits; changed evidence requires renewed review of affected conclusions.
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.

