agentleFS
Sign inStart free
OutThisLifeOutThisLife/brooklyn-skills/skills/research/SKILL.md

research

Skill207 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Look it up before answering or building — this project's documents of record first, then external prior art. Use when the user says research, look it up, sleuth GitHub, "what do other people do", "is that a thing", "are you sure", or asks for something that has obviously been solved before.

189 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • truongtv22Skill

    Problem-Solving Techniques

    Apply systematic problem-solving techniques for complexity spirals (simplification cascades), innovation blocks (collision-zone thinking), recurring patterns (meta-pattern recognition), assumption constraints (inversion exercise), scale uncertainty (scale game), and dispatch when stuck. Techniques derived from Microsoft Amplifier project patterns adapted for immediate application.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • liufeng1976Skill

    setup-ts-deep-modules

    Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.

    Also in 43 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-eval

    Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-run

    Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +5 more from Lambenthan
  • +1 more from skyllwt

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    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:

    When two documents disagree, say so instead of silently picking one.

    line 52
  2. Distinctive:

    Every non-obvious claim carries a URL.

    line 77
  3. Distinctive:

    Call something impossible or unsupported without opening the docs or source.

    line 84
  4. Distinctive:

    Stop at the first hit when the question was "how do people do this".

    line 85

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 169 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Two halves, in this order: the documents of record for this project, then prior art outside it. Answering from memory and calling it research is the thing this skill is here to stop.

Match the shape of the ask:

  • A question ("is this possible", "are we doing this right", "don't touch code"): look it up, report, stop. No edits until told to go (→ audit-only).
  • Part of the work ("research and fix", "sleuth GitHub and iterate until it's right"): research inside the loop. Look, apply, re-check, and say what each pass was based on — don't halt the loop to file a report.

Pick a depth and say it

DepthForShape
quickone fact, one API, one flaga source or two, answer in a paragraph
medium"how do people do this", choosing an approach3-6 sources, compare, recommend
very thorougharchitecture, redesign, "this has to be solved somewhere"survey the field, name the canon, ROI-ordered options

Fan out with parallel subagents for breadth. Give each one a scope, a Thoroughness: level, Do not edit files., and a return contract: exact paths with line numbers and short quotes for code, or URL, technique, license, and applicability for outside repos.

Documents of record first

Exhaust what the project already states before searching the web.

  • Tickets and specs: the tracker issue, the PRD or spec, QA feedback, the Slack or Discord thread that started it — whatever this project treats as the record.
  • The repo's own planning docs: plans/, docs/, ADRs, AGENTS.md, CONTEXT.md, README.
  • Figma dev mode when the question is visual. The design is the source of truth (→ ui-system).
  • The repo itself: git log -S<symbol> and git log -p for why the code got this way, and the vendored source in node_modules or site-packages instead of a remembered API surface.

When two documents disagree, say so instead of silently picking one. "Double check against X, Y, Z" means re-read each one and answer per document, not re-skim your own diff.

Then prior art

Someone has almost certainly solved this. Go find them and take it.

  • GitHub: gh search repos, gh search code, gh api. Read the real source, not the README. Note the license before recommending a lift.
  • arXiv and papers for anything on agents, generation, simulation, scheduling, or scoring.
  • Vendor docs and changelogs for API truth. Tutorials, blogs, Reddit, HN, and YouTube for what people actually hit in practice.

Report what is reusable, which pattern to copy, and what to leave behind.

Grade the evidence

Rank the sources and mark which tier a claim sits in:

  1. Vendor-documented, or the shipping source code. Strongest.
  2. Maintainer statements, papers, primary repos.
  3. Blogs, tutorials, forum posts, model memory. Weakest, flag them as such.

Every non-obvious claim carries a URL. With no URL, write "unverified" rather than stating it flat.

Don't

  • Answer from memory and call it research. "Are you sure?" and "did you research?" mean you already got caught doing it.
  • Call something impossible or unsupported without opening the docs or source.
  • Stop at the first hit when the question was "how do people do this".
  • Hand back a link dump. The deliverable is the recommendation, with the sources under it.
  • Drop the research on the floor. When it drives a change, the PR description carries what was found and why (→ pr-update). When it's a big survey with no PR yet, write it into the repo's planning docs so it outlives the chat.

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.

Check your setup, free