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
- ridelink0/ultimate-frontend-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrisblattman/claudeblattmantheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- genericService/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ourostack/ouroboros-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mahsumaktas/agent-evolution-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- insight68/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
nicepkgSkillcommunity-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
nicepkgSkillph-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-MoorerSkillacademic-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-MoorerSkillacademic-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
xfstudioSkillmicro-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
stophobiaSkillsurprise-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
Other versions196 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 196
- affaan-m/ECC★ 246ksame name
- bytedance/deer-flow★ 85ksame name
- Imbad0202/academic-research-skills★ 56ksame name
- THU-MAIC/OpenMAIC★ 43ksame name
- HKUSTDial/Supervisor-Skills★ 12ksame name
- genspark-ai/genoffice★ 12ksame name
- advaitpaliwal/feynman★ 10ksame name
- companion-inc/feynman★ 10ksame name
- getcompanion-ai/feynman★ 10ksame name
- jordan-gibbs/hyperresearch★ 4.4ksame name
186 more not listed
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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- experiment-executionSkill
- human-checkpointSkill
- memory-managerSkill
- paper-writingSkill
- project-contextSkill
- research-planSkill
- research-workflowSkill
- run-governorSkill
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
- Very specific: line 17
All external search during non-trivial research runs must enter through deep-research.
- Very specific: line 21
do not bypass deep-research with ad hoc direct search when fresh outside evidence is needed
- Very specific: line 23
every deep-research run must perform real WebSearch calls and keep an auditable query trail
- Very specific: line 24
if search is skipped because existing evidence is already fresh enough, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts
- Distinctive: line 36
If templates do not fit exactly, adapt structure freely but keep depth, verification, and citations.
- Distinctive: line 40
Before selecting depth or running any WebSearch queries:
- Distinctive: line 46
if built-in tool is unavailable, degrade to concise plain-text questions
- Distinctive: line 47
if intake is incomplete, remain in clarification phase and do not run search, decomposition, or synthesis
- Very specific: line 51
Every deep-research run must begin with a frontier-first scout before final depth selection.
- Distinctive: line 55
run at least 6-10 queries total
- Distinctive: line 62
use scout evidence to choose final depth
- Distinctive: line 78
run the mandatory frontier-first scout
- Distinctive: line 80
run staged time-window search with Codex WebSearch
- Distinctive: line 83
verify high-impact claims independently
- Distinctive: line 84
run contradiction/counter-evidence checks
- Distinctive: line 87
When the topic has implementation, benchmark, reproduction, or planning implications, also apply …
- Distinctive: line 91
When called during an ongoing run:
- Distinctive: line 93
treat invocation as valid and do not require starting a new run by default
- Distinctive: line 95
if objective changed materially, reset research focus and run fresh query batches
- Distinctive: line 96
if objective is similar, perform incremental deep research using existing evidence as baseline
- Very specific: line 97
if skipped due to sufficient evidence freshness, emit dr_skip_reason with explicit date windows and source counts
- Very specific: line 101
When deep research is used for open-ended scoping (idea-exploration), hand off findings to research-plan as the required default next step.
- Distinctive: line 111
Do not output final conclusions until all gate checks pass.
- Very specific: line 132
If degrade_used=YES, also print:
- Very specific: line 140
If gate_pass=NO, continue searching and do not finalize.
- Distinctive: line 147
only for narrow, low-ambiguity verification after scout
- Distinctive: line 151
default for bounded but non-trivial research questions
- Distinctive: line 155
use for broad or open-ended exploration, roadmap design, deep comparisons, or high-uncertainty topics
- Very specific: line 162
if the user does not specify, default to default-auditable
- Very specific: line 166
if ambiguous, do not choose light
- Very specific: line 167
if the prompt mentions 2 or more research-intent terms, do not choose light unless the user explicitly forces it
- Very specific: line 181
if light_disqualifiers_hit is non-empty and depth_candidate=light, set depth_sanity_pass=NO and reselect before more search
- Very specific: line 182
if open_ended_exploration=YES and user did not explicitly force light, do not use light
- Very specific: line 183
if paper_centric=YES and the user asks for mechanisms/recipes/comparisons, do not use light
- Distinctive: line 187
use Codex WebSearch directly in-session.
- Distinctive: line 188
do not depend on external search APIs for baseline operation
- Very specific: line 189
treat date text in query strings as recall hints only.
- Distinctive: line 190
use date-window targeting during retrieval, then assign stage by published-date validation
- Distinctive: line 192
if source date is unknown, keep with uncertainty label and lower priority
- Distinctive: line 193
do not claim deep-research completion without actual WebSearch calls and auditable query logs
- Very specific: line 198
Use five mandatory evidence stages and record source counts for each.
- Distinctive: line 221
Use dynamic query-family expansion:
- Distinctive: line 225
do not hard-code universal mandatory method keywords for all topics
- Distinctive: line 235
If a stage minimum is not met, allow controlled degradation only after an exhaustion pass.
- Very specific: line 245
only adjacent fallback is allowed: bleeding-edge -> frontier, frontier -> recent, recent -> mid-term
- Very specific: line 253
before heavy search batches, use the current memory snapshot or retrieve relevant insight/procedure memory when it can reduce redundant …
- Distinctive: line 254
when scout or full search uncovers a repeated issue already covered by memory, incorporate that memory explicitly rather than rediscovering …
- Distinctive: line 255
use search directly and aggressively when the topic is new, urgent, or time-sensitive
- Very specific: line 256
if a lighter depth is chosen, report why default-auditable was not needed
- Very specific: line 290
When triggered, include a dedicated Key Works Deep Dive section and meet minimum coverage:
- Distinctive: line 309
keep references anchored with published and accessed dates
- Distinctive: line 311
prefer canonical primary sources
- Distinctive: line 312
do not rely on weak secondary sources for core conclusions
- Distinctive: line 323
if paper-centric policy is triggered, key-work count meets selected depth minimum
- Distinctive: line 324
every finalized search run recorded scout plus full-query totals
- Distinctive: line 325
if degradation is used, exhaustion minimums and freshness floor are explicitly satisfied and reported
- Distinctive: line 330
always output full report in chat
- Distinctive: line 332
default save path under run logs:
“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.
Files
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:
- do not bypass
deep-researchwith ad hoc direct search when fresh outside evidence is needed deep-researchmay choose a lighter or deeper execution depth internally, but it may not silently skip actual search- every
deep-researchrun must perform real WebSearch calls and keep an auditable query trail - if search is skipped because existing evidence is already fresh enough, emit
dr_skip_reasonwith explicit date windows and source counts
Research Type Selection
Choose a primary research_type early:
idea-explorationdebug-investigationdesign-decisionimplementation-strategyconflict-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:
- confirm
intake_checkpoint_complete=YES - intake must at least define: objective/scope, constraints, and expected deliverable format
- route missing-information requests through
human-checkpoint - in
moderateordetailed, prefer built-in user-question tool (request_user_input) - if built-in tool is unavailable, degrade to concise plain-text questions
- 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:
- run at least 6-10 queries total
- cover at least:
bleeding-edgetopic queriesfrontiertopic queries- one verification query family
- one counter-evidence or criticism query family
- capture representative freshness, source quality, and contradiction density
- use scout evidence to choose final depth
Scout rules:
- scout is mandatory even when a lighter depth is later selected
- scout counts toward total query budget
- scout may justify upgrading to
deepor downgrading tolight - scout may not justify "no search"
Default Workflow
Iterate until evidence quality is sufficient:
- confirm intake checkpoint is complete
- restate objective and success criteria
- set explicit
As of: YYYY-MM-DD - run the mandatory frontier-first scout
- select execution depth
- run staged time-window search with Codex WebSearch
- extract claim-level evidence
- build key-work cards when the topic is paper-centric
- verify high-impact claims independently
- run contradiction/counter-evidence checks
- 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:
- treat invocation as valid and do not require starting a new run by default
- recompute objective delta versus current stage plan
- if objective changed materially, reset research focus and run fresh query batches
- if objective is similar, perform incremental deep research using existing evidence as baseline
- if skipped due to sufficient evidence freshness, emit
dr_skip_reasonwith 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:
- preserve core hypotheses, constraints, and evidence-backed tradeoffs
- identify recommended direction and at least one fallback direction
- 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:
intake_checkpoint_complete=YES|NOintake_channel=request_user_input|plain-text-fallback|nonesearch_entry=deep-researchfrontier_first_scout=YES|NOselected_depth=light|default-auditable|deepdepth_reason=dr_degrade_reason=total_queries=scout_queries=bleeding_edge_queries=frontier_queries=recent_queries=mid_term_queries=classic_queries=degrade_used=YES|NOgate_pass=YES|NO
If degrade_used=YES, also print:
degrade_from=degrade_to=degrade_gap=degrade_queries_run=degrade_reason=
If gate_pass=NO, continue searching and do not finalize.
Search Depth Rules
Support three execution depths:
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
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
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:
- user override wins if explicitly specified
- if the user does not specify, default to
default-auditable - select
deepwhen scope is broad, open-ended, contradiction-heavy, or asks for landscape plus recipe or mechanism analysis lightis not a default modelightis allowed only when scout confirms the task is narrow, directly verifiable, and low-ambiguity- if ambiguous, do not choose
light - if the prompt mentions 2 or more research-intent terms, do not choose
lightunless the user explicitly forces it
Depth Sanity Check (Mandatory Before Full Search)
Print this mini-check immediately after selecting depth:
depth_candidate=light_disqualifiers_hit=open_ended_exploration=YES|NOpaper_centric=YES|NOdepth_sanity_pass=YES|NO
Rules:
- if
light_disqualifiers_hitis non-empty anddepth_candidate=light, setdepth_sanity_pass=NOand reselect before more search - if
open_ended_exploration=YESand user did not explicitly forcelight, do not uselight - if
paper_centric=YESand the user asks for mechanisms/recipes/comparisons, do not uselight
Search Execution Policy (Codex Native)
- use Codex WebSearch directly in-session; do not require external browser interaction
- do not depend on external search APIs for baseline operation
- treat date text in query strings as recall hints only; do not rely on parser-specific
after:/before:behavior for final stage assignment - use date-window targeting during retrieval, then assign stage by published-date validation
- compute
days_from_as_offor each source and map to exactly one stage using the stage boundary rules below - if source date is unknown, keep with uncertainty label and lower priority
- do not claim deep-research completion without actual WebSearch calls and auditable query logs
- prioritize
bleeding-edge, thenfrontier, thenrecentwhenever 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:
bleeding-edge(0-90 days):0 <= days_from_as_of <= 90frontier(91-180 days):91 <= days_from_as_of <= 180recent(181-365 days):181 <= days_from_as_of <= 365mid-term(366-730 days):366 <= days_from_as_of <= 730classic(>730 days):days_from_as_of > 730
Freshness floor:
bleeding-edge + frontier >= 35%for normal runsbleeding-edge + frontier + recent >= 60%for all finalized runs
Stage Search Sequence
Per stage, run at least these query families:
- canonical topic terms
- synonym or alias expansion
- counter-evidence and criticism
- verification queries for high-impact claims
Use dynamic query-family expansion:
- build seed terms from user question terms and canonical topic terms
- expand with aliases discovered from high-confidence retrieved sources
- do not hard-code universal mandatory method keywords for all topics
Minimum rounds by depth:
light:bleeding-edge/frontier/recent >= 1,mid-term/classic >= 1default-auditable:bleeding-edge/frontier/recent >= 3,mid-term >= 2,classic >= 1deep: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:
light: at least 6 additional stage-targeted queriesdefault-auditable: at least 18 additional stage-targeted queriesdeep: at least 32 additional stage-targeted queries
Degrade rules:
- only adjacent fallback is allowed:
bleeding-edge -> frontier,frontier -> recent,recent -> mid-term - at most one degrade hop per stage
- borrowed amount cannot exceed 50% of the deficit stage minimum
- even after degradation, keep
bleeding-edge + frontier >= 30%andbleeding-edge + frontier + recent >= 60%
Memory and Search Policy
- global memory bootstrap is mandatory for non-trivial runs
- before heavy search batches, use the current memory snapshot or retrieve relevant
insight/procedurememory when it can reduce redundant search or contradiction cost - when scout or full search uncovers a repeated issue already covered by memory, incorporate that memory explicitly rather than rediscovering it silently
- use search directly and aggressively when the topic is new, urgent, or time-sensitive
- if a lighter depth is chosen, report why
default-auditablewas not needed
Type-Aware Reporting Requirements
Always include:
- objective and scope
- evidence-based conclusions
- contradictions and uncertainties
- anchored citations
- research trail summary
- saved report path
Type-specific emphasis:
debug-investigation- include error signature, reproduction context, fix candidates, validation outcomes
design-decision- compare alternatives, constraints, and cost/risk tradeoffs
implementation-strategy- include staged rollout options and operational prerequisites
conflict-resolution- focus on disputed claims, source reliability tiers, and resolution rationale
idea-exploration- include landscape, mechanisms, opportunities, and boundaries
Representative Works Deep-Dive Policy
Trigger this policy when user asks for any of:
- important works, representative papers, state of the art, or research landscape
- method comparison across papers
- roadmap or recipe requests grounded in prior work
When triggered, include a dedicated Key Works Deep Dive section and meet minimum coverage:
light: 3-5 key worksdefault-auditable: 6-10 key worksdeep: 10-15 key works
For each key work, provide:
- problem addressed
- method or training objective
- setup and data regime
- headline results and where they hold
- limitations or failure boundary
- why the work matters to the user's question
- primary citation
Evidence and Citation Policy
- cite in text as
[[S#]](#ref-s#) - keep references anchored with published and accessed dates
- distinguish fact, inference, and uncertainty
- prefer canonical primary sources
- do not rely on weak secondary sources for core conclusions
Quality Gate
Finalize only when:
- major claims are verified or clearly marked uncertain
- contradictions are addressed or left as explicit open issues
- citations are complete and internally consistent
- report depth matches task type
- language matches user language
- if paper-centric policy is triggered, key-work count meets selected depth minimum
- every finalized search run recorded scout plus full-query totals
- if degradation is used, exhaustion minimums and freshness floor are explicitly satisfied and reported
- the selected depth passed
Depth Sanity Check
Persistence Policy
- always output full report in chat
- save exactly one final report file per deep-research run
- default save path under run logs:
<codex-cwd>/logs/runs/<run_id>/reports/deep-research-<slug>.md
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.

