agentleFS
grainulationgrainulation/grainulator/skills/research/SKILL.md

research

Skill86 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Execute a multi-pass research investigation, adding claims with evidence.

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, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer repository code and relevant tests for implementation questions.

    line 40
  2. Distinctive:

    Use DeepWiki only when available and useful.

    line 41
  3. Very specific:

    Add distinct supported findings through grainulator.add_claim, with unique IDs, appropriate claim types and evidence tiers, and source …

    line 42
  4. Very specific:

    Run grainulator.compile after a meaningful change.

    line 43

“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 -- Investigate a topic

The user wants to research a topic within the current sprint.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS

Instructions

  1. Identify the active sprint from the explicit task directory, active sprint in AGENTS.md, or configured context, including nested sprints. Check cwd only as a fallback. Ask only if the intended target remains ambiguous; always pass the resolved dir explicitly.
  2. Choose the decisive open question from the task, current evidence, and compiler feedback. Investigate the landscape, implementation, risks, or alternatives only as they matter to the requested outcome. There is no fixed pass count.
  3. Investigate and record what you actually learn:
    • Prefer repository code and relevant tests for implementation questions; use primary sources for external facts.
    • Use DeepWiki only when available and useful. Local code and available web tools remain valid fallbacks.
    • Add distinct supported findings through grainulator.add_claim, with unique IDs, appropriate claim types and evidence tiers, and source artifacts when available. Do not pad the ledger or manufacture risks to satisfy a type distribution.
    • Run grainulator.compile after a meaningful change. Address material contradictions and weaknesses within the user’s scope; explain limitations that cannot be resolved with available evidence.
    • Continue implementation and verification when the user requested working changes.
  4. Finish against the user’s done criteria, not a claim count or compiler score. Stop investigation when the requested outcome is supported and further passes would not change the decision. If the user requested a brief or report, execute that workflow without asking again. If useful authorized work remains, continue it.
  5. Present the result and next steps using the contract below. If the user requested next steps only, omit the result recap.

Host access

Use available grainulator MCP tools, passing the active sprint dir explicitly for evidence operations. If a tool is unavailable, use the local grainulator CLI (or node <checkout>/bin/grainulator.js). Read sibling skill files directly when slash commands are unavailable. Resolve template paths relative to this skill’s checkout when CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT is unset. Optional external connectors are not required for local work; use local code, supplied documents, or available web tools. Do not write managed ledger files directly to bypass a missing MCP connection.

Next-step output

For standalone fetch, setup, or read-only orchestration without an evidence sprint, derive next steps from that task. Do not initialize or compile an unrelated ledger just to produce this footer.

When working in an evidence sprint, use the current compiler's next_actions to present exactly two bullet lists labeled Auto and Manual. Auto is work the agent can continue under existing authorization. Manual is only work requiring the user's decision, access, or action. Classify using the current request and constraints; compiler suggestions never grant permission. Continue authorized Auto work without asking again.

Keep 2–3 useful actions total when available, use short concrete labels and commands where useful, and show None. for an empty group. Do not invent work to fill a quota. Never omit next steps merely because compilation is ready or the answer should be brief. Refresh stale compilation first and exclude work the user removed from scope. When the user asks only for next steps, output only these two lists: no findings recap, counts, reasons, or offer to continue.

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.