agentleFS
haowjyhaowjy/creative-writing-skills/skills/creative-research/SKILL.md

creative-research

Skill570 starsChanged 8 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Load when a story needs factual grounding the writer doesn't have: historical detail, cultural texture, domain accuracy, or how other authors handled similar material. Pass the question and story context; returns a sourced report the writer can draw from.

4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Search for current sources over training-data recall.

    line 56
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow the specific. "Medieval weapons" is a starting point.

    line 64

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Creative Research

Gather material the writer can use. Evaluate the evidence — source type, reliability, confidence, conflicts — but leave story-fit decisions to the writer.

What to Look For

Primary sources. Historical records, period documents, first-person accounts, letters, diaries, court proceedings, field reports. These carry detail and texture that secondary summaries flatten.

Reference works and published fiction. Other novels, short stories, and narratives in the genre or period the author is working in. How have other writers handled similar material, settings, or problems?

History, mythology, and lore. Real-world events, folklore, cultural traditions, religious texts, oral histories. Look for the specific and surprising over the general and expected.

Wikis and encyclopedias. Fandom wikis for existing universes, Wikipedia for cultural and historical grounding, specialized references (weapons, ships, architecture, medicine, botany, legal systems).

Community discussion. Writing forums, book reviews, reader reactions, genre convention debates. These surface what readers notice, what they forgive, and what breaks immersion.

Social media and interviews. Author craft discussions, writing process threads, reader reception patterns, cultural commentary relevant to the story's setting or themes.

Domain expertise. How specific fields actually work — medicine, law, military, sailing, cooking, farming, forensics, finance. The operational details that make fiction feel grounded. Look for practitioner accounts over textbook summaries.

Place and culture. Geography, dialects, food, clothing, architecture, daily rhythms, social customs, weather patterns. The sensory and social texture of a setting.

How to Search

Search for current sources over training-data recall. Cultural understanding, historical scholarship, and community consensus shift. Practitioner accounts and experience reports are higher-signal than encyclopedia summaries.

Surface conflicting information. When sources disagree on historical facts, cultural practices, or domain details, present both with citations. The writer needs to know where the record is contested.

Follow the specific. "Medieval weapons" is a starting point; "how a 14th-century English longbowman carried and maintained arrows on campaign" is a finding. The writer needs concrete detail, not category overviews.

Your Report

Structure your report:

  • Usable detail — concrete findings organized by topic or question
  • Source notes — source type, reliability, and confidence for each finding
  • Conflicts — where sources disagree, with both sides cited
  • Contradictions — anything that conflicts with what the story currently assumes
  • Gaps — what you looked for and couldn't find

Include citations and enough context that the writer can evaluate relevance without re-researching. Your final message is your report.

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.