industry-research
CLAUDE.md19 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
A multi-agent adversarial industry research engine (Claude Code skill). Takes a fuzzy industry/sector/business-opportunity request, runs it through a structured "hypothesis → adversarial challenge → synthesis" pipeline, and outputs a research report with source citations and confidence scores. Has a specialized vertical for restaurant/retail/supply-chain research that uses operating-trace verification instead of narrative-based analysis. The engine is defined entirely in SKILL.md — it is the orchestrator that coordinates four sub-agents. There is no application code; the system runs as a Claude Code…
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- industry-researchSkill
The file
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 75
When an agent fails or times out, the system degrades gracefully rather than crashing:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
CLAUDE.md
This file provides guidance to Claude Code (claude.ai/code) when working with code in this repository.
What This Is
A multi-agent adversarial industry research engine (Claude Code skill). Takes a fuzzy industry/sector/business-opportunity request, runs it through a structured "hypothesis → adversarial challenge → synthesis" pipeline, and outputs a research report with source citations and confidence scores. Has a specialized vertical for restaurant/retail/supply-chain research that uses operating-trace verification instead of narrative-based analysis.
Architecture
The engine is defined entirely in SKILL.md — it is the orchestrator that coordinates four sub-agents. There is no application code; the system runs as a Claude Code skill invoked via /industry-research.
Agent roles (all in agents/):
| Agent | File | Role |
| Engagement Manager | agents/engagement-manager.md | Structures the research question into a ghost deck (analysis skeleton) and optional entity evidence plan |
| Blue Team | agents/blue-team.md | Bull-case analyst — builds evidence-backed optimistic thesis |
| Red Team | agents/red-team.md | Bear-case analyst — pre-mortem + adversarial challenge |
| Chief Arbitrator | agents/chief-arbitrator.md | Hegelian synthesis — resolves red/blue conflict into a final report with verdicts |
Execution flow (stages in SKILL.md):
- Domain Grounding (Phase 1): Industry taxonomy mapping → web research → context dictionary → user confirmation
- Business Physics Modeling (Step 2.0, restaurant/retail/supply-chain only): Entity evidence plan (
entity_evidence_plan.json) - Ghost Deck (Step 2.1): MECE chapter structure with falsifiable action titles
- Round 1 (Step 2.2): Red and blue agents run in parallel — independent analysis
- Round 2 (Step 2.3): Cross-rebuttal — each side sees the other's R1 output (skipped in
briefmode unless conflicts are severe) - Arbitration (Step 2.4): Chief arbitrator produces
final_report.md+report_metadata.json - Validation (Step 2.5): Automated structure check via
scripts/validate_report.py
Key pipeline contract: Agents receive absolute paths to {workspace_dir} and write JSON outputs there. The orchestrator reads agent outputs and passes them to the next stage. All intermediate artifacts persist to disk.
Report Depths
| Depth | Target length | Round 2 | Use case |
brief | ~3,000 chars | Skipped by default | Quick decisions, internal alignment |
standard | ~8,000 chars | Yes | Investment decisions, strategic planning |
comprehensive | ~15,000 chars | Yes | Due diligence, board materials |
Validation & Testing
Report validation (run after report generation):
# General industry
python3 scripts/validate_report.py <workspace_dir>/final_report.md --depth standard
# Restaurant/retail/supply-chain vertical
python3 scripts/validate_report.py <workspace_dir>/final_report.md --depth standard --vertical restaurant-retail-supply-chainThe validator checks: required sections present, citation count, confidence scores, anti-patterns (wishy-washy synthesis), character length bounds, and operating-footprint evidence for the RRSC vertical.
Smoke tests (require pre-built workspace directories):
scripts/run_rrsc_smoke_validation.sh # Full pipeline: validates all 10 artifact files + report structure
scripts/run_maiji_interview_prep_validation.sh # Interview-prep variant: validates entity evidence plan + interview guideEvaluation prompts are in evals/evals.json — 7 test scenarios covering different depths, languages, and verticals.
Key References
Files in references/ are read by agents at specific pipeline stages:
industry-taxonomy.md— National economic industry classification codes (Phase 1, Step 1.1)analytical-frameworks.md— MECE, PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, pre-mortem, MAMV voting (passed to all agents)restaurant-retail-supply-chain-physics.md— Physical constraints model for restaurant/retail/supply-chain (Step 2.0)evidence-triangulation-playbook.md— Evidence family taxonomy, triangulation rules, anomaly attribution (Steps 2.0 and 2.4)report-template.md— Final report structure template (Step 2.4)
Degradation Protocol
When an agent fails or times out, the system degrades gracefully rather than crashing:
- Mark
execution_mode = degradedin metadata - Append to
degradation_tags(e.g.,ghost_deck_generation,round1_missing_side) - Main agent generates a minimum viable version of the missing artifact
- Report clearly notes which sections are degraded
Language Handling
Output language follows user input language. Chinese input → Chinese report; English input → English report. All agents work in the same language as the final report.
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.

