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
- dialog-db/dialog-dbtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- howells/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- xiaoxiaosrm/dsh-mattpocock-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Suge8/friedbuntheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- wowyuarm/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Contexera/dsh-agent-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
LambenthanSkilldaily-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
LambenthanSkillexp-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
truongtv22SkillProblem-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
liufeng1976Skillsetup-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
skyllwtSkillexp-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
skyllwtSkillexp-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
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- udecode/plate★ 17ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- ArcReel/ArcReel★ 6.3ksame name
- vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN★ 5.5ksame name
- withcoral/coral★ 4.9ksame name
179 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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analyticsSkill
- blind-spotSkill
- briefSkill
- calibrateSkill
- challengeSkill
- feedbackSkill
- fetchSkill
- grainulatorSkill
- healthcheckSkill
- initSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- presentSkill
- pullSkill
- resolveSkill
- routerSkill
- setupSkill
- statusSkill
- syncSkill
- witnessSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 40
Prefer repository code and relevant tests for implementation questions.
- Distinctive: line 41
Use DeepWiki only when available and useful.
- Very specific: line 42
Add distinct supported findings through grainulator.add_claim, with unique IDs, appropriate claim types and evidence tiers, and source …
- Very specific: line 43
Run grainulator.compile after a meaningful change.
“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.
Files
/research -- Investigate a topic
The user wants to research a topic within the current sprint.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS
Instructions
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.compileafter 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.

