big-research-scout
Skill13 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Find and inspect scholarly sources, map related work, verify citations and document search coverage for a human researcher's actual question.
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-analysisSkill
- big-research-designSkill
- big-research-reviewSkill
- big-research-setupSkill
- big-researchSkill
- big-research-writingSkill
The file
Files
Sources and context
Clarify whether this is a quick scan, narrative synthesis, systematic review or archival search. Choose databases appropriate to the question and field; arXiv is useful in some fields and is not universal coverage.
Search at multiple levels: exact question, alternative terminology, rival approaches, methods and foundational work. Inspect actual sources. Distinguish metadata, abstract and full-text inspection. Record title, URL or local file, access date, precise location and search coverage. Never invent bibliography entries from memory or mark inaccessible sources verified.
Cluster findings by question, method, agreement, disagreement and evidence limitations. Read deeply where it changes a decision; do not substitute popularity or venue for merit. Include relevant contrary findings and non-English material where appropriate.
Load synthesis guidance for formal reviews and interpretive guidance for archival/textual work. Do not label a bounded scan systematic. Deliver a source register, evidence map and bounded synthesis, not only a reading list. Persist evidence for continuing projects through the current workspace.
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.