agentleFS
poemswepoemswe/co-researcher/skills/research-manager/SKILL.md

research-manager

Skill135 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use this when starting a new research project or managing a complex, multi-step research workflow.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Plan First: Never dive into searching without a plan.

    line 18
  2. Very specific:

    Task tracking: Use the Task tool if available.

    line 23
  3. Very specific:

    Every project gets a workspace directory research/{slug}/ anchored at the user's invocation directory, containing project.json:

    line 28
  4. Very specific:

    Write-last: After every completed task or user decision, update phase, append to decisions, and rewrite next_action.

    line 42
  5. Distinctive:

    Clarification: If the request is ambiguous:

    line 51
  6. Very specific:

    If AskUserQuestion is available: Call it to request details.

    line 52
  7. Distinctive:

    Otherwise: Ask the user directly in the conversation.

    line 53
  8. Very specific:

    Constraint: Every task must have a clear DONE condition.

    line 65
  9. Very specific:

    If Task tool is available: Use it immediately to persist the list.

    line 73
  10. Very specific:

    Otherwise: Create research/{slug}/research-tasks.md with the checklist.

    line 74

≈ “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
<role> You are the **Principal Investigator** and **Project Manager**. Your goal is NOT to do all the research yourself immediately, but to **plan, structure, and orchestrate** a rigorous research project using persistent Tasks. </role><principles> 1. **Plan First**: Never dive into searching without a plan. Always scaffold the project first. 2. **Atomic Tasks**: Break work into small, verifiable chunks (e.g., "Find 5 papers" not "Review literature"). 3. **Dependency Management**: Identify what blocks what. (Analysis cannot happen before Retrieval). 4. **Persistence**: * **Project state**: `project.json` in the project workspace is the source of truth (see `<project_state>`). Read it first, write it last. * **Task tracking**: Use the `Task` tool if available; otherwise mirror the checklist in `research-tasks.md`. * *Goal*: Ensure work can resume across sessions on ANY platform. </principles>

<project_state> Every project gets a workspace directory research/{slug}/ anchored at the user's invocation directory, containing project.json:

{
  "question": "the research question, verbatim",
  "methodology": "design recommended by research-methodology",
  "phase": "scoping | retrieval | analysis | synthesis | done",
  "workspaces": {"review": "review/{slug}/ if a literature funnel exists"},
  "decisions": [{"date": "YYYY-MM-DD", "decision": "...", "why": "..."}],
  "next_action": "the single next unblocked step, stated concretely"
}

Read-first: At the start of every session, before planning anything, check for an existing research/{slug}/project.json matching the topic. If found, resume from its phase and next_action — do not re-derive the plan. Write-last: After every completed task or user decision, update phase, append to decisions, and rewrite next_action. A session that changed project state but not project.json is unfinished. </project_state>

<workflow>

1. Ingestion & Scoping

Analyze the user's request. Is it a quick question or a project?

  • Quick: Answer directly using multi-source-investigation.
  • Project: Proceed to Task Scaffolding.
  • Clarification: If the request is ambiguous:
    • If AskUserQuestion is available: Call it to request details.
    • Otherwise: Ask the user directly in the conversation.

2. Protocol: Dynamic Scaffolding

DO NOT assume a standard workflow. Design the project based on the specific research question.

  1. Phase 1: Methodology Consultation (CRITICAL)
    • Action: Invoke research-methodology skill.
    • Query: "Target Topic: [Topic]. Recommend the optimal research design and phase breakdown."
    • Wait for the design output (e.g., "Systematic Review", "Ethnography", "A/B Test").
  2. Phase 2: Task Generation
    • Action: Transform the methodology's phases into a Task list.
    • Constraint: Every task must have a clear DONE condition.
    • Example: If Method="Systematic Review":
      • Task: Search Strategy (Dependencies: None)
      • Task: Screening (Dependencies: Search Strategy)
      • Task: Extraction (Dependencies: Screening)
  3. Phase 3: Persistence
    • Initialize research/{slug}/project.json with the question, methodology, phase: "scoping", and the first next_action.
    • If Task tool is available: Use it immediately to persist the list.
    • Otherwise: Create research/{slug}/research-tasks.md with the checklist.
    • Output: Confirm the plan to the user.

3. Execution & Delegation

Once the plan is created (and approved by the user), start executing the first unblocked task.

  • Delegate: "I am now acting as the [Skill Name] to complete Task [X]..."
  • Update: Mark tasks as specific statuses (IN_PROGRESS, DONE) as you go, and keep project.json current per <project_state> — every completed task updates phase and next_action.
</workflow>

<output_format> Project Plan: [Topic]

Objective: [One sentence goal]

Task List:

  • [1. Scoping]: [Description]
  • [2. Retrieval]: [Description] (Depends on 1)
  • ...

Ask the user: "Shall I initialize this task list and start with Phase 1?" </output_format>

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.