research
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Standard deep research (L1) with planner decomposition and per-source summarization. ~5 min, 10-15 sources, structured ~1000 word report. Default choice for "расскажи про X", "как работает Y", "что нового в Z". Use this when /quick-research is too shallow and /deep-research is overkill.
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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- academic-researchSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- expert-researchSkill
- osint-researchSkill
- quick-researchSkill
- ultra-researchSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Default when user asks for research without specifying depth
- Distinctive: line 48
Create a single session folder:
- Very specific: line 61
Use a URL-safe slug from the query (e.g., nextjs-edge-runtime).
- Distinctive: line 65
If query is clear, skip. Otherwise ONE question max, then proceed.
- Distinctive: line 84
When/why to use X? (use cases, trade-offs, alternatives)
- Distinctive: line 110
Run ALL searches in parallel in ONE message (Bash calls + Tavily MCP calls together):
- Distinctive: line 130
Add year ("2026") for freshness-sensitive topics
- Distinctive: line 133
Avoid generic queries — be specific
- Very specific: line 194
Read ALL .sum.md files. Produce report.md:
- Distinctive: line 231
Every factual claim MUST have [N] citation
- Distinctive: line 232
If sources conflict, note both positions explicitly
- Distinctive: line 233
Use specific numbers and quotes, not vague generalities
- Very specific: line 252
Run this Bash block. If verification fails, fix the underlying problem — do NOT ship a broken L1 report (downstream L2/L3/L4/L5 depend on …
- Very specific: line 294
When L2/L3/L4/L5 call this skill, they:
- Very specific: line 296
Read report.md and all .sum.md files as input for their additional layers
- Distinctive: line 297
Do NOT duplicate L1 work
“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 — L1 Base Deep Research
Standard research tier. Adds Planner (query decomposition) and per-source summarization on top of quick-research. This is the true foundation of the L1–L5 ladder — every higher level calls this one first, then layers on more.
Position in ladder: L1. Called by L2 (deep-research), L3, L4, L5 as the first stage.
When to Use
- "расскажи про X", "что такое Y", "как работает Z" — non-trivial but not strategic
- Technical overviews of a framework, library, concept
- "что нового в X в 2026"
- Default when user asks for research without specifying depth
Escalate to higher levels if:
- User wants comparison →
/deep-research(L2) or/expert-research(L3) - User wants strategic decision →
/expert-research(L3) - User wants academic rigor →
/academic-research(L4) - User wants a knowledge base →
/ultra-research(L5)
Budget
- Time: ~5 min
- Tavily credits: ~20
- Sub-questions: 3
- Sources scraped: 10–15
- Output: structured report ~1000 words
Pipeline
1. CLARIFY — skip if query is clear
2. PLAN — decompose into 3 sub-questions
3. SEARCH — parallel search for each sub-question
4. READ — scrape 10-15 most relevant sources
5. SUMMARIZE — per-source summary files
6. SYNTHESIZE — structured report from summaries
7. SOURCES — annotated bibliographyArtifacts Directory
Create a single session folder:
.firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/
├── plan.md # planner output (sub-questions)
├── sources/
│ ├── 01-<slug>.md # full scrape
│ ├── 01-<slug>.sum.md # 300-500 word summary
│ ├── 02-...
│ └── ...
├── report.md # final synthesized report
└── bibliography.md # annotated sourcesUse a URL-safe slug from the query (e.g., nextjs-edge-runtime).
Step 1: CLARIFY
If query is clear, skip. Otherwise ONE question max, then proceed.
Clear enough to proceed:
- "расскажи про Drizzle ORM"
- "как работает Tavily Research API"
- "что нового в Bun 2.0"
Needs clarification:
- "расскажи про auth" → ask: какая именно auth, для какого стека?
- "исследуй маркетплейсы" → ask: b2c/b2b, регион, вертикаль?
Step 2: PLAN (Planner decomposition)
Decompose the query into exactly 3 sub-questions that together cover the topic. Save to plan.md.
Decomposition heuristics:
- "Что такое X" → What, How, Why/When
- What is X? (definition, components)
- How does X work? (mechanism, architecture)
- When/why to use X? (use cases, trade-offs, alternatives)
- "Как работает X" → Overview, Internals, Gotchas
- "Что нового в X" → Changes, Breaking, Migration
- "X vs Y" — use
/deep-researchinstead, L1 is not for comparisons
Write plan.md:
# Research plan: <query>
**Session:** <slug>
**Level:** L1
**Created:** <date>
## Sub-questions
1. <subq1>
2. <subq2>
3. <subq3>
## Search strategy
- subq1 → [english query, russian query if applicable]
- subq2 → [...]
- subq3 → [...]Step 3: SEARCH (parallel per sub-question)
Run ALL searches in parallel in ONE message (Bash calls + Tavily MCP calls together):
For each sub-question:
firecrawl search "<subq1 refined>" --limit 5 --json -o .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/search-1.json
firecrawl search "<subq2 refined>" --limit 5 --json -o .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/search-2.json
firecrawl search "<subq3 refined>" --limit 5 --json -o .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/search-3.jsonPlus Tavily for each:
mcp__tavily__tavily_search with:
query: <subq>
max_results: 5
search_depth: "advanced"v0.2.2: persist Tavily results. Tavily goes through MCP — its output lives in conversation context by default, not on disk. After each
mcp__tavily__tavily_searchcall, use the Write tool to save the returned JSON (or the full result object) to.firecrawl/research/$SLUG/L1/tavily-N.jsonwhere N matches the sub-question index. Without persistence, Tavily findings disappear after context compaction and can't be audited.
Search query refinement rules:
- Add year ("2026") for freshness-sensitive topics
- For Russian-language topics: one query in Russian + one in English
- For technical libraries: include library name + specific aspect
- Avoid generic queries — be specific
Step 4: READ (scrape 10–15 sources)
Combine results from all searches, deduplicate by URL, rank by:
- Official docs (highest priority)
- Authoritative sources (known tech blogs, framework maintainers)
- Recent (2025–2026)
- Community with real experience (HN, Reddit, GitHub discussions)
Pick 10–15 sources total (roughly 3–5 per sub-question).
Scrape ALL in parallel in one message using background tasks:
firecrawl scrape "<url1>" --only-main-content -o .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/sources/01-<slug>.md &
firecrawl scrape "<url2>" --only-main-content -o .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/sources/02-<slug>.md &
# ... up to 15
waitSkip these:
- Paywalled content (NYT, WSJ, Medium paywall)
- SEO spam / thin affiliate pages
- Very old (pre-2023) unless historical context needed
- Translated machine-gen content
Step 5: SUMMARIZE (per-source, MANDATORY)
This is the key difference from L0. Each source gets its own summary file BEFORE synthesis.
For each scraped file, write a companion .sum.md file with this exact structure:
# Source 01: <title>
**URL:** <url>
**Type:** [official-docs | tech-blog | community | news | academic]
**Date:** <publication date if available>
**Quality:** [A | B | C] <!-- A=primary/authoritative, B=solid secondary, C=supplementary -->
**Relevant to:** [subq1 | subq2 | subq3]
## Key facts
- Fact 1 (specific, citable)
- Fact 2
- ...
## Key quotes
> "exact quote 1"
> "exact quote 2"
## Notes
- Contradicts source X on Y (if applicable)
- Confirms source X on Z
- Gap: doesn't address WTarget: 300–500 words per summary. Extract facts, numbers, specific claims. Avoid generic statements.
Why this matters: synthesis step will read summaries, not raw scrapes. Keeps context clean, prevents hallucination, enables downstream levels (L2–L5) to work with structured input.
Step 6: SYNTHESIZE (report from summaries)
Read ALL .sum.md files. Produce report.md:
# <Topic Title>
**Query:** <original query>
**Level:** L1
**Sources:** <count>
**Generated:** <date>
## TL;DR
[2-3 sentences answering the core question directly]
## <Sub-question 1 as section heading>
[Answer grounded in sources. Inline citations [1], [2].]
## <Sub-question 2 as section heading>
[...]
## <Sub-question 3 as section heading>
[...]
## Key takeaways
- Point 1 [1, 3]
- Point 2 [2, 5]
- Point 3 [4]
## Open questions / gaps
- What the sources did NOT answer (honest list)
- Where sources disagreed
## Recommendation
[Concrete, opinionated recommendation if the query implies a decision. Skip if pure information query.]Rules for synthesis:
- Organize by theme / sub-question, NOT by source
- Every factual claim MUST have [N] citation
- If sources conflict, note both positions explicitly
- Use specific numbers and quotes, not vague generalities
- Target 800–1500 words for the main body
Step 7: SOURCES (bibliography)
Write bibliography.md:
# Bibliography
1. **[Title]**(URL) — Quality: A | Type: official-docs
Contribution: primary source for X, confirmed Y
2. **[Title]**(URL) — Quality: B | Type: tech-blog
Contribution: real-world benchmarks for Z
...🛑 FINAL VERIFICATION (before delivering the report)
Run this Bash block. If verification fails, fix the underlying problem — do NOT ship a broken L1 report (downstream L2/L3/L4/L5 depend on it being correct).
v0.4.0: verification logic now lives in the shared library at ~/.claude/scripts/lib/verify-research.sh (installed by scripts/install.sh). Skills call it instead of inlining 30+ lines of Bash. Single source of truth for citation regex, size thresholds, and source-pair counting. Fixing a check in one place updates every tier.
SLUG="<slug>" # replace with actual slug
# Locate the shared verification library.
# Prefer the installed copy; fall back to repo-local if running without install.sh.
VERIFY_LIB="$HOME/.claude/scripts/lib/verify-research.sh"
[ -f "$VERIFY_LIB" ] || VERIFY_LIB="scripts/lib/verify-research.sh"
[ -f "$VERIFY_LIB" ] || { echo "❌ verify-research.sh not found — run scripts/install.sh first"; exit 1; }
source "$VERIFY_LIB"
verify_l1 "$SLUG" || exit 1Only deliver the report to the user after this prints ✅ L1 VERIFIED.
The verify_l1 function checks: plan exists; report ≥700 words; bibliography present; ≥10 scrape+summary pairs; each source ≥500 bytes; every [N] citation (including multi-cite [1, 3, 16]) maps to a bibliography entry.
Final output to user
- Display
report.mdcontent in chat - Mention artifact location:
Файлы в .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/ - Offer next steps:
Нужно глубже?
/deep-research(L2) добавит reflection и проверку противоречий. Нужна строгая проверка?/expert-research(L3) добавит critic-агент и fact-check.
Rules
- Always planner first — never skip Step 2. This is what makes L1 ≠ L0.
- Always per-source summaries — never skip Step 5. Downstream levels depend on it.
- Parallel everything — searches and scrapes run concurrently in one message
- Cite everything — no claims without [N] reference
- Flag conflicts — explicit "source A says X, source B says Y"
- Russian / English — match user's query language in output
- No hallucinations — if sources don't answer it, say "not found in sources"
- Leave artifacts — keep files, don't clean up automatically (unlike L0)
Called from higher levels
When L2/L3/L4/L5 call this skill, they:
- Execute the full L1 pipeline
- Read
report.mdand all.sum.mdfiles as input for their additional layers - Do NOT duplicate L1 work
This means L1 must produce clean, structured, self-contained output that downstream levels can build on.
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.

