agentleFS
cellrishi-codecellrishi-code/claude-skills-atlas/skills/research/research-question/SKILL.md

research-question

Skill6 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub

Turn a broad research request into a precise, answerable investigation with claims, evidence requirements, search strategy, and uncertainty tracking.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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:

    Create a search plan using multiple independent source types.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not treat popularity as evidence of correctness.

    line 31

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

Convert vague research goals into an evidence-driven investigation.

Process

  1. Restate the question in operational terms.
  2. Define scope, population, time period, and terminology.
  3. Break the question into answerable subquestions.
  4. Identify which claims require primary sources, reviews, datasets, experiments, or official documentation.
  5. Create a search plan using multiple independent source types.
  6. Track claims, evidence, contradictions, and unresolved gaps.
  7. Distinguish established findings from interpretation and speculation.
  8. Produce a synthesis that preserves uncertainty.

Source hierarchy

Prefer, when applicable:

  1. Primary research or original technical documentation
  2. Official datasets, standards, or institutional sources
  3. Systematic reviews and high-quality surveys
  4. Reputable secondary analysis
  5. Community discussions for practical experience or discovery

Do not treat popularity as evidence of correctness.

Output

Return:

  • Research question
  • Scope and definitions
  • Subquestions
  • Evidence plan
  • Search terms
  • Claim/evidence table
  • Contradictions and gaps
  • Final synthesis

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.