agentleFS
hint-shuhint-shu/deep-research/skills/research/SKILL.md

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

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Default when user asks for research without specifying depth

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Create a single session folder:

    line 48
  3. Very specific:

    Use a URL-safe slug from the query (e.g., nextjs-edge-runtime).

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    If query is clear, skip. Otherwise ONE question max, then proceed.

    line 65
  5. Distinctive:

    When/why to use X? (use cases, trade-offs, alternatives)

    line 84
  6. Distinctive:

    Run ALL searches in parallel in ONE message (Bash calls + Tavily MCP calls together):

    line 110
  7. Distinctive:

    Add year ("2026") for freshness-sensitive topics

    line 130
  8. Distinctive:

    Avoid generic queries — be specific

    line 133
  9. Very specific:

    Read ALL .sum.md files. Produce report.md:

    line 194
  10. Distinctive:

    Every factual claim MUST have [N] citation

    line 231
  11. Distinctive:

    If sources conflict, note both positions explicitly

    line 232
  12. Distinctive:

    Use specific numbers and quotes, not vague generalities

    line 233
  13. Very specific:

    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 …

    line 252
  14. Very specific:

    When L2/L3/L4/L5 call this skill, they:

    line 294
  15. Very specific:

    Read report.md and all .sum.md files as input for their additional layers

    line 296
  16. Distinctive:

    Do NOT duplicate L1 work

    line 297

“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 — 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 bibliography

Artifacts 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 sources

Use 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-research instead, 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.json

Plus 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_search call, use the Write tool to save the returned JSON (or the full result object) to .firecrawl/research/$SLUG/L1/tavily-N.json where 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:

  1. Official docs (highest priority)
  2. Authoritative sources (known tech blogs, framework maintainers)
  3. Recent (2025–2026)
  4. 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
wait

Skip 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 W

Target: 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 1

Only 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

  1. Display report.md content in chat
  2. Mention artifact location: Файлы в .firecrawl/research/<slug>/L1/
  3. 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:

  1. Execute the full L1 pipeline
  2. Read report.md and all .sum.md files as input for their additional layers
  3. Do NOT duplicate L1 work

This means L1 must produce clean, structured, self-contained output that downstream levels can build on.

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.