agentleFS
Sign inStart free
sgaabdu4sgaabdu4/building-flutter-apps/.agents/skills/research/SKILL.md

research

Skill25 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Investigate a codebase, compare tools or approaches, verify current external or library facts, and research failures before making a substantive technical recommendation. Use for sufficiency and gap reviews; ordinary edits with settled requirements do not need a research stage.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 164 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Start = decision to answer + relevant scope + settled constraints + required freshness.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Read each reference whose question is part of the task.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Before concluding, revisit the original question and derived coverage: each material item has evidence, a reason it does not apply, or an …

    line 38
  4. Distinctive:

    Stop when remaining investigation is unlikely to change the decision, or the missing evidence and next useful check are clear.

    line 41

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 164 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

Approach

  • Start = decision to answer + relevant scope + settled constraints + required freshness. Reuse answers already available.
  • Coverage = derive relevant questions from the problem and authoritative sources before evaluating options. User-named tools and questions are the minimum, not the whole investigation.
  • Evidence = repository source for local behavior; official docs/source/changelogs for external contracts; issues, Reddit and other community reports for discovery and practical counterexamples.
  • Independence = search by the problem as well as named solutions; inspect credible alternatives and evidence against the preferred answer where they could change the decision.
  • Claims = distinguish documented capability, locally observed behavior, inference and unknown. Missing evidence does not establish that a capability is absent.
  • Proportion = investigate what can change the answer; no fixed search quota, mandatory report or unrelated audit.
  • Scope = reuse existing task authorization; research alone adds no permission for installation, implementation or external writes. Continue useful independent investigation when one source is unavailable.

Routes

Read each reference whose question is part of the task; skip unrelated routes.

flowchart LR
  Q{Question} -->|Repository behavior / impact| C[Codebase]
  Q -->|Options / overlap / sufficiency| O[Comparison]
  Q -->|Current external claim| E[External evidence]
  Q -->|Library / API contract| L[Library and API]
  Q -->|Failure / remedy| F[Troubleshooting]
  click C "references/codebase.md"
  click O "references/comparison.md"
  click E "references/external.md"
  click L "references/library-api.md"
  click F "references/troubleshooting.md"

Completion

  • Before concluding, revisit the original question and derived coverage: each material item has evidence, a reason it does not apply, or an explicit unknown and its consequence.
  • Resolve material contradictions by source authority, version and applicability; keep unresolved disagreements visible.
  • Claim sufficiency only for the stated scope. Name meaningful remaining gaps and explain why they are acceptable or prevent a recommendation.
  • Stop when remaining investigation is unlikely to change the decision, or the missing evidence and next useful check are clear. Do not promise exhaustive certainty.
  • Answer first, cite decisive sources beside claims, and explain tradeoffs and limits. Use a compact comparison table when it helps; do not force fixed report sections.
  • Record accepted decisions in the existing decision file when requested. Keep proposals and unknowns separate; create reusable notes only when requested or needed by subsequent work.

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions188 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. sgaabdu4/appwrite-backend★ 2100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 187

    1. mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
    2. Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 40ksame name
    3. Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 40ksame name
    4. QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
    5. udecode/plate★ 17ksame name
    6. openai/plugins★ 7.4ksame name
    7. ArcReel/ArcReel★ 6ksame name
    8. vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN★ 5.5ksame name
    9. withcoral/coral★ 4.9ksame name
    10. docker/docs★ 4.7ksame name

    177 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.

  • Used alongsideProjects 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 38 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
  • In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.

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.

Check your setup, free