agentleFS
TenureAITenureAI/PhD-Zero/.agents/skills/deep-research/SKILL.md

deep-research

Skill52 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Deep evidence-first research with broad discovery, verification, and traceable citations. Prefer invoking via research-workflow. TRIGGER when (MANDATORY — you MUST invoke this skill, no exceptions): user message contains ANY of these keywords or synonyms — 调研/研究/对比/综述/文献/证据/机制/根因/为什么/可行性/路线图/分析/探索, or research/investigate/compare/survey/literature/evidence/mechanism/root-cause/why/feasibility/roadmap/analyze/explore — or asks to verify claims, analyze tradeoffs, scope a new topic, or conduct literature review. Also use this skill as the default gateway for external search. Skipping when keywords match is a routing violation. DO NOT TRIGGER when: user asks for paper-writing output (use paper-writing), experiment launch (use experiment-execution), or plan-only without evidence (use research-plan).

196 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use community-led-growth, ph-community-outreach 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.
  • nicepkgSkill

    community-led-growth

    Expert in community-led growth (CLG) - leveraging user communities to drive acquisition, retention, and expansion. Covers building developer communities, user groups, ambassador programs, and turning customers into advocates. Knows the difference between community as a feature vs community as a growth engine, and how to measure community ROI. Use when "community-led, CLG, ambassador program, champion program, user community, developer community, word of mouth, user group, " mentioned.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • nicepkgSkill

    ph-community-outreach

    Engage Reddit, Indie Hackers, Hacker News and other communities for Product Hunt launches. Use this skill to identify relevant communities, craft appropriate posts, and drive cross-platform engagement without appearing spammy.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • W-MoorerSkill

    academic-paper-reviewer

    Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • W-MoorerSkill

    academic-pipeline

    Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • xfstudioSkill

    micro-saas-launcher

    Expert in launching small, focused SaaS products fast - the indie hacker approach to building profitable software. Covers idea validation, MVP development, pricing, launch strategies, and growing to sustainable revenue. Ship in weeks, not months. Use when: micro saas, indie hacker, small saas, side project, saas mvp.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • stophobiaSkill

    surprise-me

    Create a delightful, unexpected "wow" experience for the user by dynamically discovering and creatively combining other enabled skills. Triggers when the user says "surprise me" or any request expressing a desire for an unexpected creative showcase. Also triggers when the user is bored, wants inspiration, or asks for "something interesting".

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +4 more from nicepkg
  • +1 more from W-Moorer

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

58 rules. 0 are common, 37 are distinctive, and 21 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 37

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 21

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    All external search during non-trivial research runs must enter through deep-research.

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    do not bypass deep-research with ad hoc direct search when fresh outside evidence is needed

    line 21
  3. Very specific:

    every deep-research run must perform real WebSearch calls and keep an auditable query trail

    line 23
  4. Very specific:

    if search is skipped because existing evidence is already fresh enough, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts

    line 24
  5. Distinctive:

    If templates do not fit exactly, adapt structure freely but keep depth, verification, and citations.

    line 36
  6. Distinctive:

    Before selecting depth or running any WebSearch queries:

    line 40
  7. Distinctive:

    if built-in tool is unavailable, degrade to concise plain-text questions

    line 46
  8. Distinctive:

    if intake is incomplete, remain in clarification phase and do not run search, decomposition, or synthesis

    line 47
  9. Very specific:

    Every deep-research run must begin with a frontier-first scout before final depth selection.

    line 51
  10. Distinctive:

    run at least 6-10 queries total

    line 55
  11. Distinctive:

    use scout evidence to choose final depth

    line 62
  12. Distinctive:

    run the mandatory frontier-first scout

    line 78
  13. Distinctive:

    run staged time-window search with Codex WebSearch

    line 80
  14. Distinctive:

    verify high-impact claims independently

    line 83
  15. Distinctive:

    run contradiction/counter-evidence checks

    line 84
  16. Distinctive:

    When the topic has implementation, benchmark, reproduction, or planning implications, also apply …

    line 87
  17. Distinctive:

    When called during an ongoing run:

    line 91
  18. Distinctive:

    treat invocation as valid and do not require starting a new run by default

    line 93
  19. Distinctive:

    if objective changed materially, reset research focus and run fresh query batches

    line 95
  20. Distinctive:

    if objective is similar, perform incremental deep research using existing evidence as baseline

    line 96
  21. Very specific:

    if skipped due to sufficient evidence freshness, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts

    line 97
  22. Very specific:

    When deep research is used for open-ended scoping (idea-exploration), hand off findings to research-plan as the required default next step.

    line 101
  23. Distinctive:

    Do not output final conclusions until all gate checks pass.

    line 111
  24. Very specific:

    If degrade_used=YES, also print:

    line 132
  25. Very specific:

    If gate_pass=NO, continue searching and do not finalize.

    line 140
  26. Distinctive:

    only for narrow, low-ambiguity verification after scout

    line 147
  27. Distinctive:

    default for bounded but non-trivial research questions

    line 151
  28. Distinctive:

    use for broad or open-ended exploration, roadmap design, deep comparisons, or high-uncertainty topics

    line 155
  29. Very specific:

    if the user does not specify, default to default-auditable

    line 162
  30. Very specific:

    if ambiguous, do not choose light

    line 166
  31. Very specific:

    if the prompt mentions 2 or more research-intent terms, do not choose light unless the user explicitly forces it

    line 167
  32. Very specific:

    if light_disqualifiers_hit is non-empty and depth_candidate=light, set depth_sanity_pass=NO and reselect before more search

    line 181
  33. Very specific:

    if open_ended_exploration=YES and user did not explicitly force light, do not use light

    line 182
  34. Very specific:

    if paper_centric=YES and the user asks for mechanisms/recipes/comparisons, do not use light

    line 183
  35. Distinctive:

    use Codex WebSearch directly in-session.

    line 187
  36. Distinctive:

    do not depend on external search APIs for baseline operation

    line 188
  37. Very specific:

    treat date text in query strings as recall hints only.

    line 189
  38. Distinctive:

    use date-window targeting during retrieval, then assign stage by published-date validation

    line 190
  39. Distinctive:

    if source date is unknown, keep with uncertainty label and lower priority

    line 192
  40. Distinctive:

    do not claim deep-research completion without actual WebSearch calls and auditable query logs

    line 193
  41. Very specific:

    Use five mandatory evidence stages and record source counts for each.

    line 198
  42. Distinctive:

    Use dynamic query-family expansion:

    line 221
  43. Distinctive:

    do not hard-code universal mandatory method keywords for all topics

    line 225
  44. Distinctive:

    If a stage minimum is not met, allow controlled degradation only after an exhaustion pass.

    line 235
  45. Very specific:

    only adjacent fallback is allowed: bleeding-edge -> frontier, frontier -> recent, recent -> mid-term

    line 245
  46. Very specific:

    before heavy search batches, use the current memory snapshot or retrieve relevant insight/procedure memory when it can reduce redundant …

    line 253
  47. Distinctive:

    when scout or full search uncovers a repeated issue already covered by memory, incorporate that memory explicitly rather than rediscovering …

    line 254
  48. Distinctive:

    use search directly and aggressively when the topic is new, urgent, or time-sensitive

    line 255
  49. Very specific:

    if a lighter depth is chosen, report why default-auditable was not needed

    line 256
  50. Very specific:

    When triggered, include a dedicated Key Works Deep Dive section and meet minimum coverage:

    line 290
  51. Distinctive:

    keep references anchored with published and accessed dates

    line 309
  52. Distinctive:

    prefer canonical primary sources

    line 311
  53. Distinctive:

    do not rely on weak secondary sources for core conclusions

    line 312
  54. Distinctive:

    if paper-centric policy is triggered, key-work count meets selected depth minimum

    line 323
  55. Distinctive:

    every finalized search run recorded scout plus full-query totals

    line 324
  56. Distinctive:

    if degradation is used, exhaustion minimums and freshness floor are explicitly satisfied and reported

    line 325
  57. Distinctive:

    always output full report in chat

    line 330
  58. Distinctive:

    default save path under run logs:

    line 332

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 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

Deep Research

Mission

Produce a deeply researched, evidence-grounded answer with clear provenance and actionable conclusions, and act as the default gateway for external search in research runs.

Search Routing Gate (Mandatory)

All external search during non-trivial research runs must enter through deep-research.

Rules:

  1. do not bypass deep-research with ad hoc direct search when fresh outside evidence is needed
  2. deep-research may choose a lighter or deeper execution depth internally, but it may not silently skip actual search
  3. every deep-research run must perform real WebSearch calls and keep an auditable query trail
  4. if search is skipped because existing evidence is already fresh enough, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts

Research Type Selection

Choose a primary research_type early:

  1. idea-exploration
  2. debug-investigation
  3. design-decision
  4. implementation-strategy
  5. conflict-resolution

If templates do not fit exactly, adapt structure freely but keep depth, verification, and citations.

Intake Checkpoint Gate (Mandatory Before Search)

Before selecting depth or running any WebSearch queries:

  1. confirm intake_checkpoint_complete=YES
  2. intake must at least define: objective/scope, constraints, and expected deliverable format
  3. route missing-information requests through human-checkpoint
  4. in moderate or detailed, prefer built-in user-question tool (request_user_input)
  5. if built-in tool is unavailable, degrade to concise plain-text questions
  6. if intake is incomplete, remain in clarification phase and do not run search, decomposition, or synthesis

Frontier-First Scout (Mandatory)

Every deep-research run must begin with a frontier-first scout before final depth selection.

Scout requirements:

  1. run at least 6-10 queries total
  2. cover at least:
    • bleeding-edge topic queries
    • frontier topic queries
    • one verification query family
    • one counter-evidence or criticism query family
  3. capture representative freshness, source quality, and contradiction density
  4. use scout evidence to choose final depth

Scout rules:

  1. scout is mandatory even when a lighter depth is later selected
  2. scout counts toward total query budget
  3. scout may justify upgrading to deep or downgrading to light
  4. scout may not justify "no search"

Default Workflow

Iterate until evidence quality is sufficient:

  1. confirm intake checkpoint is complete
  2. restate objective and success criteria
  3. set explicit As of: YYYY-MM-DD
  4. run the mandatory frontier-first scout
  5. select execution depth
  6. run staged time-window search with Codex WebSearch
  7. extract claim-level evidence
  8. build key-work cards when the topic is paper-centric
  9. verify high-impact claims independently
  10. run contradiction/counter-evidence checks
  11. synthesize and produce final report

When the topic has implementation, benchmark, reproduction, or planning implications, also apply references/codebase-and-data-research-rules.md.

Re-entry Policy (Mid-Run)

When called during an ongoing run:

  1. treat invocation as valid and do not require starting a new run by default
  2. recompute objective delta versus current stage plan
  3. if objective changed materially, reset research focus and run fresh query batches
  4. if objective is similar, perform incremental deep research using existing evidence as baseline
  5. if skipped due to sufficient evidence freshness, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts

Scoping-to-Planning Handoff Policy

When deep research is used for open-ended scoping (idea-exploration), hand off findings to research-plan as the required default next step. Skip only if the user explicitly opts out.

Handoff expectations:

  1. preserve core hypotheses, constraints, and evidence-backed tradeoffs
  2. identify recommended direction and at least one fallback direction
  3. convert conclusions into executable planning inputs (experiments, implementation prerequisites, data/workload requirements, risks)

Completion Gate (Mandatory)

Do not output final conclusions until all gate checks pass.

Before synthesis, print:

  1. intake_checkpoint_complete=YES|NO
  2. intake_channel=request_user_input|plain-text-fallback|none
  3. search_entry=deep-research
  4. frontier_first_scout=YES|NO
  5. selected_depth=light|default-auditable|deep
  6. depth_reason=
  7. dr_degrade_reason=
  8. total_queries=
  9. scout_queries=
  10. bleeding_edge_queries=
  11. frontier_queries=
  12. recent_queries=
  13. mid_term_queries=
  14. classic_queries=
  15. degrade_used=YES|NO
  16. gate_pass=YES|NO

If degrade_used=YES, also print:

  1. degrade_from=
  2. degrade_to=
  3. degrade_gap=
  4. degrade_queries_run=
  5. degrade_reason=

If gate_pass=NO, continue searching and do not finalize.

Search Depth Rules

Support three execution depths:

  1. light
    • only for narrow, low-ambiguity verification after scout
    • total: 12-24 queries
    • stage minimums: bleeding-edge >= 3, frontier >= 3, recent >= 2, mid-term >= 1, classic >= 1
  2. default-auditable
    • default for bounded but non-trivial research questions
    • total: target 50-80 queries
    • stage minimums: bleeding-edge >= 12, frontier >= 10, recent >= 10, mid-term >= 8, classic >= 6
  3. deep
    • use for broad or open-ended exploration, roadmap design, deep comparisons, or high-uncertainty topics
    • total: 100-140 queries
    • stage minimums: bleeding-edge >= 28, frontier >= 22, recent >= 20, mid-term >= 16, classic >= 10

Selection rules:

  1. user override wins if explicitly specified
  2. if the user does not specify, default to default-auditable
  3. select deep when scope is broad, open-ended, contradiction-heavy, or asks for landscape plus recipe or mechanism analysis
  4. light is not a default mode
  5. light is allowed only when scout confirms the task is narrow, directly verifiable, and low-ambiguity
  6. if ambiguous, do not choose light
  7. if the prompt mentions 2 or more research-intent terms, do not choose light unless the user explicitly forces it

Depth Sanity Check (Mandatory Before Full Search)

Print this mini-check immediately after selecting depth:

  1. depth_candidate=
  2. light_disqualifiers_hit=
  3. open_ended_exploration=YES|NO
  4. paper_centric=YES|NO
  5. depth_sanity_pass=YES|NO

Rules:

  1. if light_disqualifiers_hit is non-empty and depth_candidate=light, set depth_sanity_pass=NO and reselect before more search
  2. if open_ended_exploration=YES and user did not explicitly force light, do not use light
  3. if paper_centric=YES and the user asks for mechanisms/recipes/comparisons, do not use light

Search Execution Policy (Codex Native)

  1. use Codex WebSearch directly in-session; do not require external browser interaction
  2. do not depend on external search APIs for baseline operation
  3. treat date text in query strings as recall hints only; do not rely on parser-specific after:/before: behavior for final stage assignment
  4. use date-window targeting during retrieval, then assign stage by published-date validation
  5. compute days_from_as_of for each source and map to exactly one stage using the stage boundary rules below
  6. if source date is unknown, keep with uncertainty label and lower priority
  7. do not claim deep-research completion without actual WebSearch calls and auditable query logs
  8. prioritize bleeding-edge, then frontier, then recent whenever the user cares about the latest or fastest-moving evidence

Staged Time Windows

Use five mandatory evidence stages and record source counts for each. Define days_from_as_of = as_of_date - published_date (integer days). Stages are mutually exclusive:

  1. bleeding-edge (0-90 days): 0 <= days_from_as_of <= 90
  2. frontier (91-180 days): 91 <= days_from_as_of <= 180
  3. recent (181-365 days): 181 <= days_from_as_of <= 365
  4. mid-term (366-730 days): 366 <= days_from_as_of <= 730
  5. classic (>730 days): days_from_as_of > 730

Freshness floor:

  1. bleeding-edge + frontier >= 35% for normal runs
  2. bleeding-edge + frontier + recent >= 60% for all finalized runs

Stage Search Sequence

Per stage, run at least these query families:

  1. canonical topic terms
  2. synonym or alias expansion
  3. counter-evidence and criticism
  4. verification queries for high-impact claims

Use dynamic query-family expansion:

  1. build seed terms from user question terms and canonical topic terms
  2. expand with aliases discovered from high-confidence retrieved sources
  3. do not hard-code universal mandatory method keywords for all topics

Minimum rounds by depth:

  1. light: bleeding-edge/frontier/recent >= 1, mid-term/classic >= 1
  2. default-auditable: bleeding-edge/frontier/recent >= 3, mid-term >= 2, classic >= 1
  3. deep: bleeding-edge/frontier/recent >= 4, mid-term >= 3, classic >= 2

Stage Deficit Degrade Policy

If a stage minimum is not met, allow controlled degradation only after an exhaustion pass.

Exhaustion pass minimums per deficit stage:

  1. light: at least 6 additional stage-targeted queries
  2. default-auditable: at least 18 additional stage-targeted queries
  3. deep: at least 32 additional stage-targeted queries

Degrade rules:

  1. only adjacent fallback is allowed: bleeding-edge -> frontier, frontier -> recent, recent -> mid-term
  2. at most one degrade hop per stage
  3. borrowed amount cannot exceed 50% of the deficit stage minimum
  4. even after degradation, keep bleeding-edge + frontier >= 30% and bleeding-edge + frontier + recent >= 60%

Memory and Search Policy

  1. global memory bootstrap is mandatory for non-trivial runs
  2. before heavy search batches, use the current memory snapshot or retrieve relevant insight/procedure memory when it can reduce redundant search or contradiction cost
  3. when scout or full search uncovers a repeated issue already covered by memory, incorporate that memory explicitly rather than rediscovering it silently
  4. use search directly and aggressively when the topic is new, urgent, or time-sensitive
  5. if a lighter depth is chosen, report why default-auditable was not needed

Type-Aware Reporting Requirements

Always include:

  1. objective and scope
  2. evidence-based conclusions
  3. contradictions and uncertainties
  4. anchored citations
  5. research trail summary
  6. saved report path

Type-specific emphasis:

  1. debug-investigation
    • include error signature, reproduction context, fix candidates, validation outcomes
  2. design-decision
    • compare alternatives, constraints, and cost/risk tradeoffs
  3. implementation-strategy
    • include staged rollout options and operational prerequisites
  4. conflict-resolution
    • focus on disputed claims, source reliability tiers, and resolution rationale
  5. idea-exploration
    • include landscape, mechanisms, opportunities, and boundaries

Representative Works Deep-Dive Policy

Trigger this policy when user asks for any of:

  1. important works, representative papers, state of the art, or research landscape
  2. method comparison across papers
  3. roadmap or recipe requests grounded in prior work

When triggered, include a dedicated Key Works Deep Dive section and meet minimum coverage:

  1. light: 3-5 key works
  2. default-auditable: 6-10 key works
  3. deep: 10-15 key works

For each key work, provide:

  1. problem addressed
  2. method or training objective
  3. setup and data regime
  4. headline results and where they hold
  5. limitations or failure boundary
  6. why the work matters to the user's question
  7. primary citation

Evidence and Citation Policy

  1. cite in text as [[S#]](#ref-s#)
  2. keep references anchored with published and accessed dates
  3. distinguish fact, inference, and uncertainty
  4. prefer canonical primary sources
  5. do not rely on weak secondary sources for core conclusions

Quality Gate

Finalize only when:

  1. major claims are verified or clearly marked uncertain
  2. contradictions are addressed or left as explicit open issues
  3. citations are complete and internally consistent
  4. report depth matches task type
  5. language matches user language
  6. if paper-centric policy is triggered, key-work count meets selected depth minimum
  7. every finalized search run recorded scout plus full-query totals
  8. if degradation is used, exhaustion minimums and freshness floor are explicitly satisfied and reported
  9. the selected depth passed Depth Sanity Check

Persistence Policy

  1. always output full report in chat
  2. save exactly one final report file per deep-research run
  3. default save path under run logs:
    • <codex-cwd>/logs/runs/<run_id>/reports/deep-research-<slug>.md

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.