agentleFS
manazoid4manazoid4/maz-works-knowledge-vault/skills/autoresearch/SKILL.md

autoresearch

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Autonomous iterative research loop. Takes a topic, runs web searches, fetches sources, synthesizes findings, and files everything into the wiki as structured pages. Based on Karpathy's autoresearch pattern: program.md configures objectives and constraints, the loop runs until depth is reached, output goes directly into the knowledge base. Triggers on: "/autoresearch", "autoresearch", "research [topic]", "deep dive into [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find everything about [topic]", "research and file", "go research", "build a wiki on".

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

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use aeon-update, auto-workflow 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.
  • aaronjmarsSkill

    aeon-update

    Pull framework updates from the upstream Aeon repo into this instance - 3-way merges canon's new commits into a PR, never clobbering operator config.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • aaronjmarsSkill

    auto-workflow

    Two-mode aeon.yml workflow builder - analyze inspects URLs and emits a tiered, signal-verified skill-enablement plan plus an aeon.yml diff; enable flips slugs to enabled:true and opens a PR.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +10 more from aaronjmars

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

22 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 13 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 100 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 13

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before filing research output, consult the vault's methodology mode via python3 scripts/wiki-mode.py route research "<topic>".

    line 36
  2. Very specific:

    If .vault-meta/mode.json is absent, the router returns mode=generic paths.

    line 43
  3. Very specific:

    When the research session produces multiple entity / concept pages alongside the main synthesis, route EACH via the appropriate router call …

    line 45
  4. Very specific:

    Read references/program.md to load the research objectives and constraints.

    line 90
  5. Very specific:

    When the user says /autoresearch [topic] or "research X", use the given topic verbatim and skip the sections below.

    line 99
  6. Very specific:

    When /autoresearch is invoked WITHOUT a topic AND the vault has adopted DragonScale, default to surfacing the frontier of the vault as a …

    line 104
  7. Very specific:

    Run ./scripts/boundary-score.py --json --top 5.

    line 118
  8. Very specific:

    Helper failure handling: if the helper exits non-zero, emits invalid JSON, or returns an empty results array, set BOUNDARY_MODE=0 and fall …

    line 119
  9. Distinctive:

    If the user picks 1-5, use the selected page's title as the topic.

    line 121
  10. Distinctive:

    If the user types free text, use that.

    line 122
  11. Distinctive:

    If the user cancels or does not choose, fall through to C.

    line 123
  12. Very specific:

    When BOUNDARY_MODE=0 or the user declined every frontier pick, ask: "What topic should I research?"

    line 130
  13. Distinctive:

    After research is complete, create these pages:

    line 161
  14. Distinctive:

    Use source frontmatter (type, source_type, author, date_published, url, confidence, key_claims)

    line 164
  15. Distinctive:

    Only create a page if the concept is substantive enough to stand alone

    line 168
  16. Distinctive:

    Check the index first: update existing concept pages rather than creating duplicates

    line 169
  17. Distinctive:

    Check the index first: update existing entity pages

    line 172
  18. Very specific:

    Update wiki/index.md. Add all new pages to the right sections

    line 232
  19. Very specific:

    Update wiki/hot.md with the research summary

    line 242
  20. Very specific:

    Follow the limits in references/program.md:

    line 273
  21. Distinctive:

    If a constraint conflicts with completeness, respect the constraint and note what was left out in the Open Questions section.

    line 279
  22. Very specific:

    When working on this skill, apply the 10-principle loop.

    line 285

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 100 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

autoresearch: Autonomous Research Loop

You are a research agent. You take a topic, run iterative web searches, synthesize findings, and file everything into the wiki. The user gets wiki pages, not a chat response.

This is based on Karpathy's autoresearch pattern: a configurable program defines your objectives. You run the loop until depth is reached. Output goes into the knowledge base.


Transport (v1.7+)

The research loop writes a lot — source pages, concept pages, entity pages, manifest updates. All writes follow the standard transport policy. Read .vault-meta/transport.json (auto-created by bash scripts/detect-transport.sh):

  • cli — obsidian-cli write "$VAULT" "$NOTE" < content.md; see skills/wiki-cli/SKILL.md
  • mcp-obsidian / mcpvault — mcp__obsidian-vault__write_note
  • filesystem — Claude's Write tool with absolute path

Full decision tree: wiki/references/transport-fallback.md. Web fetches (WebFetch/WebSearch) are transport-agnostic.


Mode awareness (v1.8+)

Before filing research output, consult the vault's methodology mode via python3 scripts/wiki-mode.py route research "<topic>". The router returns the vault-relative path:

  • generic: wiki/concepts/<Topic>.md (v1.7 default)
  • LYT: wiki/notes/<topic>.md + create or update a topic MOC at wiki/mocs/<topic>-moc.md
  • PARA: wiki/resources/<topic>/<topic>.md (topic-named subfolder under resources)
  • Zettelkasten: wiki/<ID>-<topic>.md (timestamped ID prefix)

If .vault-meta/mode.json is absent, the router returns mode=generic paths.

When the research session produces multiple entity / concept pages alongside the main synthesis, route EACH via the appropriate router call (route entity / route concept), not just the synthesis page. Mode awareness applies to every new file the loop creates.

Web egress hygiene (v1.8.2+)

Autoresearch calls WebFetch and WebSearch to pull arbitrary URLs. Before each fetch and before writing fetched content to the vault, apply these guards:

1. URL validation. Reject these schemes and targets:

  • file://, javascript:, data: schemes — fetch only http(s)://
  • RFC1918 private addresses (10.x.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x, 192.168.x.x) and localhost/127.0.0.1 — these would target the user's internal network
  • Hosts not surfaced by the prior WebSearch step (be conservative; do not follow redirects to domains that never appeared in search results)

The Claude Code WebFetch tool has built-in defenses against many of these. Apply them here as defense-in-depth.

2. Content sanitization before writing fetched HTML into a wiki page. Fetched content can contain prompt-style injections, fake wikilinks, or executable code fences. Before any Write to wiki/sources/<source>.md:

  • Strip <script>, <iframe>, <style> tags and their contents
  • Escape [[ and ]] in the source body so adversarial content cannot inject wikilinks into the vault's link graph (encode as \[\[ or HTML-entity &#91;&#91;)
  • Reject any --- YAML-frontmatter delimiter inside fetched content — the source page's frontmatter is authored by the loop, not by the upstream source
  • Truncate fetched bodies to ~50KB to avoid context blowout

3. Per-loop cost expectation. A full autoresearch run is up to 3 rounds × 5 sources × 3 angles ≈ 45 WebFetch calls. WebFetch is metered through the Anthropic plan. The max_pages: 15 cap in references/program.md limits FILING cost but does NOT cap FETCH count. Surface the budget expectation to the user before kicking off research on a high-cost topic.

4. Failure mode. If a fetch fails (timeout, 4xx/5xx, content too large, sanitization removed everything), log the URL + reason to wiki/log.md and continue the loop. Do NOT abort the whole run. Do NOT silently swallow — every skipped source is a fact the user needs in the synthesis page's "Open Questions" section.

The router (python3 scripts/wiki-mode.py route) already sanitizes the topic-derived FILENAME via safe_name(). This section adds the second layer: BODY-content hygiene for fetched pages.


Concurrency (v1.7+)

The research loop is a high write-rate skill (often 10-30 page writes per topic). Every wiki page write MUST be preceded by wiki-lock acquire <path>:

bash scripts/wiki-lock.sh acquire wiki/sources/<slug>.md || sleep 2 && bash scripts/wiki-lock.sh acquire wiki/sources/<slug>.md
# … write via §Transport-selected method …
bash scripts/wiki-lock.sh release wiki/sources/<slug>.md

If autoresearch is invoked in parallel (e.g., two /autoresearch commands fired at once on overlapping topics), the locks ensure that the same source/concept/entity page is written by only one loop at a time. The losing acquire skips that page for the current pass and logs wiki/log.md; the page will be picked up in the next iteration of the winning loop's pass.

See skills/wiki-ingest/SKILL.md §Concurrency for the full lock semantics.


Before Starting

Read references/program.md to load the research objectives and constraints. This file is user-configurable. It defines what sources to prefer, how to score confidence, and any domain-specific constraints.


Topic Selection

Three paths to a topic:

A. Explicit topic (always respected)

When the user says /autoresearch [topic] or "research X", use the given topic verbatim and skip the sections below.

B. Boundary-first selection (agenda control, opt-in)

This is agenda control, not pure memory. DragonScale Memory.md Mechanism 4 labels this mechanism as such because it shapes which direction the research agent moves next. Users who want a strict memory-layer subset should omit this path entirely.

When /autoresearch is invoked WITHOUT a topic AND the vault has adopted DragonScale, default to surfacing the frontier of the vault as a set of candidate topics the user can accept, override, or decline.

Feature detection (shell):

if [ -x ./scripts/boundary-score.py ] && [ -d ./.vault-meta ] && command -v python3 >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  BOUNDARY_MODE=1
else
  BOUNDARY_MODE=0
fi

When BOUNDARY_MODE=1:

  1. Run ./scripts/boundary-score.py --json --top 5. Returns the top 5 frontier pages by boundary_score = (out_degree - in_degree) * recency_weight.
  2. Helper failure handling: if the helper exits non-zero, emits invalid JSON, or returns an empty results array, set BOUNDARY_MODE=0 and fall through to section C below. Do NOT prompt the user with an empty candidate list, and do NOT improvise a topic.
  3. Present the candidate list to the user: "Your top frontier pages are: [list]. Research which one? (1-5, or type a topic to override, or say 'cancel' to be asked normally.)"
  4. If the user picks 1-5, use the selected page's title as the topic.
  5. If the user types free text, use that.
  6. If the user cancels or does not choose, fall through to C.

The boundary score is a heuristic, not an objective measure of what SHOULD be researched. The user always has the option to type a free-text topic to override the surfaced candidates.

Link-resolution semantics: the boundary helper uses filename-stem wikilink resolution only. [[Foo]] is counted as an edge to Foo.md anywhere in the vault. Aliases declared via frontmatter aliases: are not parsed. Folder-qualified links (e.g. [[notes/Foo]]) are resolved by stem only. This matches default Obsidian behavior for unique filenames but does not implement full Obsidian alias resolution.

C. User-chosen (default when B is unavailable)

When BOUNDARY_MODE=0 or the user declined every frontier pick, ask: "What topic should I research?"


Research Loop

Input: topic (from Topic Selection, above)

Round 1. Broad search
1. Decompose topic into 3-5 distinct search angles
2. For each angle: run 2-3 WebSearch queries
3. For top 2-3 results per angle: WebFetch the page
4. Extract from each: key claims, entities, concepts, open questions

Round 2. Gap fill
5. Identify what's missing or contradicted from Round 1
6. Run targeted searches for each gap (max 5 queries)
7. Fetch top results for each gap

Round 3. Synthesis check (optional, if gaps remain)
8. If major contradictions or missing pieces still exist: one more targeted pass
9. Otherwise: proceed to filing

Max rounds: 3 (as set in program.md). Stop when depth is reached or max rounds hit.

Filing Results

After research is complete, create these pages:

wiki/sources/. One page per major reference found

  • Use source frontmatter (type, source_type, author, date_published, url, confidence, key_claims)
  • Body: summary of the source, what it contributes to the topic

wiki/concepts/. One page per significant concept extracted

  • Only create a page if the concept is substantive enough to stand alone
  • Check the index first: update existing concept pages rather than creating duplicates

wiki/entities/. One page per significant person, org, or product identified

  • Check the index first: update existing entity pages

wiki/questions/. One synthesis page titled "Research: [Topic]"

  • This is the master synthesis. Everything comes together here.
  • Sections: Overview, Key Findings, Entities, Concepts, Contradictions, Open Questions, Sources
  • Full frontmatter with related links to all pages created in this session

Synthesis Page Structure

---
type: synthesis
title: "Research: [Topic]"
created: YYYY-MM-DD
updated: YYYY-MM-DD
tags:
  - research
  - [topic-tag]
status: developing
related:
  - "[[Every page created in this session]]"
sources:
  - "[[wiki/sources/Source 1]]"
  - "[[wiki/sources/Source 2]]"
---

# Research: [Topic]

## Overview
[2-3 sentence summary of what was found]

## Key Findings
- Finding 1 (Source: [[Source Page]])
- Finding 2 (Source: [[Source Page]])
- ...

## Key Entities
- [[Entity Name]]: role/significance

## Key Concepts
- [[Concept Name]]: one-line definition

## Contradictions
- [[Source A]] says X. [[Source B]] says Y. [Brief note on which is more credible and why]

## Open Questions
- [Question that research didn't fully answer]
- [Gap that needs more sources]

## Sources
- [[Source 1]]: author, date
- [[Source 2]]: author, date

After Filing

  1. Update wiki/index.md. Add all new pages to the right sections
  2. Append to wiki/log.md (at the TOP):
    ## [YYYY-MM-DD] autoresearch | [Topic]
    - Rounds: N
    - Sources found: N
    - Pages created: [[Page 1]], [[Page 2]], ...
    - Synthesis: [[Research: Topic]]
    - Key finding: [one sentence]
  3. Update wiki/hot.md with the research summary

Report to User

After filing everything:

Research complete: [Topic]

Rounds: N | Searches: N | Pages created: N

Created:
  wiki/questions/Research: [Topic].md (synthesis)
  wiki/sources/[Source 1].md
  wiki/concepts/[Concept 1].md
  wiki/entities/[Entity 1].md

Key findings:
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

Open questions filed: N

Constraints

Follow the limits in references/program.md:

  • Max rounds (default: 3)
  • Max pages per session (default: 15)
  • Confidence scoring rules
  • Source preference rules

If a constraint conflicts with completeness, respect the constraint and note what was left out in the Open Questions section.


How to think (10-principle mapping)

When working on this skill, apply the 10-principle loop. See skills/think/SKILL.md for the canonical framework.

#PrincipleApplication here
1OBSERVE (ext)Read references/program.md to load constraints. Read the topic verbatim. Note what's already in the wiki.
2OBSERVE (int)Am I steering the search toward what I already expect to find? Confirmation bias kills research.
3LISTENThe user's framing + cultural context + the counter-position the user might NOT have considered.
4THINK3-5 distinct search angles that cover the topic without overlap; credibility-weighted source filter.
5CONNECT (lat)Cross-source corroboration vs contradiction — the synthesis lives at the intersection, not in any single source.
6CONNECT (sys)WebFetch + WebSearch + §Web egress hygiene + wiki-mode router + wiki-lock for multi-writer safety.
7FEEL30 pages of low-signal noise wastes the user's time and Anthropic plan budget. Quality over volume.
8ACCEPTMissing sources are part of the synthesis — file them under Open Questions, don't paper over.
9CREATESynthesis page + sources + entities + concepts; full traceability per claim.
10GROWOpen Questions feed the next research cycle; the loop is incremental, not exhaustive.

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.