agentleFS
mageyukimageyuki/skills/research-workflow/SKILL.md

research-workflow

Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a question needs iterative multi-source research, cost estimation, SaaS or product comparison, architecture research, incident investigation, source freshness tracking, or a repeated evidence refresh.

13 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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 8 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. Very specific:

    Use the Base directory for this skill reported by the skill loader.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Reconcile before synthesis: When artifacts disagree, compare the original evidence, scope, and retrieval times.

    line 35
  3. Very specific:

    Write only below $RESEARCH_HOME or its ~/.research fallback.

    line 41
  4. Distinctive:

    Never write credentials, raw secret state, unnecessary personal data, or unbounded payloads.

    line 42

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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 Workflow

Overview

Iterative research uses a durable workspace as the system of record; conversation is temporary.

Core principle: initialize manifest-first state, orient cheaply, deepen only identified gaps, and synthesize from persisted evidence.

Choose the mode

RequestMode
One supplied URL summaryDirect work
One local function explanationDirect work
One known configuration answerDirect work
One deterministic calculationDirect work
One exact mechanical editDirect work
Multi-source comparison, uncertain estimate, architecture or incident investigation, or evidence refreshIterative research

Manifest-first recipe

  1. Locate or initialize. Reuse the stable topic workspace; if absent, initialize before deep retrieval. Use the Base directory for this skill reported by the skill loader. Resolve scripts/init_workspace.py below that directory, then invoke it with Python 3 and the stable topic slug. Never guess a config, cache, or home-directory path.
  2. Define the brief. Record goal, decision, scope, exclusions, constraints, and 3–7 questions.
  3. Orientation. Make 2–4 high-yield repository/task and primary-documentation reads. Record knowns, gaps, stale evidence, and next action.
  4. Deepen selectively. Investigate one gap using the narrowest authoritative source. Keep retrieval bounded by tenant, project, region, dates, fields, pages, and result count. Update source identity, authority, retrieval time, freshness, claims, and errors.
  5. Persist each cycle in order. First write detailed evidence, assumptions, calculations, and conclusions in their dedicated artifacts. Then update the corresponding compact manifest.json and state.md summaries. Finally append the cycle delta to changes.md. Preserve stable question and source IDs.
  6. Reconcile before synthesis. When artifacts disagree, compare the original evidence, scope, and retrieval times; do not blindly prefer the newest file. Keep unresolved discrepancies explicit, state their decision impact, and synthesize from the supported record.
  7. Refresh by delta. Resume the workspace, revalidate stale material, preserve last-known values after failures, and report only evidence, assumption, calculation, freshness, conclusion, and open-question deltas.
  8. Stop deliberately. Stop when evidence is sufficient and residual uncertainty cannot change the decision. If the agreed scope is exhausted, record material unanswered questions instead of claiming every question is answered. If authentication is unavailable, stop that tenant branch, preserve last-known evidence without presenting it as current, and never substitute public data. Persist the stop reason, unresolved questions, and decision impact in existing state.md sections and the changes.md entry.

Boundaries

  • Write only below $RESEARCH_HOME or its ~/.research fallback. Read repository/task sources and explicitly declared external sources.
  • Never write credentials, raw secret state, unnecessary personal data, or unbounded payloads; minimize sensitive fields.
  • Tenant facts require authenticated evidence; follow the stopping procedure when authentication fails.
  • External publication, mutation, or synchronization requires explicit authorization and confirmed success.
  • Artifact update order is an agent procedure, not synchronization tooling or a transactional or concurrent-writer guarantee.

Quick reference

NeedArtifact/action
Current machine statemanifest.json (schema version 2)
Conclusion and next actionstate.md
Evidence and freshnesssources.md
Assumptions and confidenceassumptions.md
Cycle deltaschanges.md
Detailed formsArtifact templates
Fields and update rulesManifest schema
Source choiceSource priority

Example

For a SaaS cost comparison, initialize monitoring-cost, orient with current pricing and limits, record region/currency/date assumptions, calculate annual totals from persisted inputs, deepen billing or residency gaps, and report the recommendation plus uncertainty.

Common mistakes

  • Searching before creating or resuming the manifest.
  • Substituting polished prose for persisted evidence.
  • Retrieving without a recorded gap or bound.
  • Mixing facts, assumptions, and calculations.
  • Repeating a full refresh instead of its delta.

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.