agentleFS
shobcodershobcoder/shob/skills/research-knowledge/SKILL.md

deep-research

Skill575 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

GOD MODE deep research skill. Multi-phase autonomous research loop: query decomposition → multi-source crawling → claim cross-referencing → conflict resolution → structured synthesis with inline citations. Use for any question that demands depth, sourcing, and verifiable accuracy.

196 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use community-led-growth, ph-community-outreach 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.
  • nicepkgSkill

    community-led-growth

    Expert in community-led growth (CLG) - leveraging user communities to drive acquisition, retention, and expansion. Covers building developer communities, user groups, ambassador programs, and turning customers into advocates. Knows the difference between community as a feature vs community as a growth engine, and how to measure community ROI. Use when "community-led, CLG, ambassador program, champion program, user community, developer community, word of mouth, user group, " mentioned.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • nicepkgSkill

    ph-community-outreach

    Engage Reddit, Indie Hackers, Hacker News and other communities for Product Hunt launches. Use this skill to identify relevant communities, craft appropriate posts, and drive cross-platform engagement without appearing spammy.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • W-MoorerSkill

    academic-paper-reviewer

    Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • W-MoorerSkill

    academic-pipeline

    Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • xfstudioSkill

    micro-saas-launcher

    Expert in launching small, focused SaaS products fast - the indie hacker approach to building profitable software. Covers idea validation, MVP development, pricing, launch strategies, and growing to sustainable revenue. Ship in weeks, not months. Use when: micro saas, indie hacker, small saas, side project, saas mvp.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • stophobiaSkill

    surprise-me

    Create a delightful, unexpected "wow" experience for the user by dynamically discovering and creatively combining other enabled skills. Triggers when the user says "surprise me" or any request expressing a desire for an unexpected creative showcase. Also triggers when the user is bored, wants inspiration, or asks for "something interesting".

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +4 more from nicepkg
  • +1 more from W-Moorer

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Very specific:

    If a sub-question has zero Tier 1–2 sources, mark it [unverified] and flag it in the report.

    line 126
  2. Distinctive:

    Run all checks before delivering the report.

    line 229
  3. Distinctive:

    Use a flag in the trigger to switch modes:

    line 244
  4. Distinctive:

    If confidence is below 70% after the first pass:

    line 257
  5. Very specific:

    Never invent a statistic. If a number is not sourced, write [no data found].

    line 275
  6. Distinctive:

    Never paraphrase into a stronger claim.

    line 276
  7. Distinctive:

    Never merge two sources' claims into one sentence without attributing both.

    line 277
  8. Distinctive:

    Never omit a conflict because it is inconvenient — surface it in the conflicts table.

    line 278
  9. Very specific:

    If uncertain, say so explicitly using [unverified] or [disputed] inline tags.

    line 280
  10. Distinctive:

    Never reproduce more than 15 words verbatim from any single source.

    line 281

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 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

Deep Research — GOD MODE

Trigger

/deep-research <query> or when user says "research this deeply", "go deep on", "full research report on", "investigate this thoroughly".

Core Philosophy

Raw search results are noise. Verified synthesis is signal. Every claim needs a source. Every conflict needs a resolution. A great deep research report is a structured intelligence brief, not a search summary.

Architecture

Query
  └── Phase 1: Decompose → Sub-questions
        └── Phase 2: Parallel Search → Raw Sources
              └── Phase 3: Crawl & Extract → Claims
                    └── Phase 4: Cross-Reference → Verify / Conflict
                          └── Phase 5: Synthesize → Report
                                └── Phase 6: Quality Gates → Deliver

Phase 1 — Query Decomposition

Break the user's query into 3–7 atomic sub-questions. Each must be:

  • Independently searchable
  • Non-overlapping with others
  • Ordered from foundational to advanced

Example:

Query: "Is Company X profitable?"

Sub-questions:

  1. What is Company X's current revenue model?
  2. What are its reported ARR and revenue figures?
  3. What is its burn rate and cost structure?
  4. What do investors say about its path to profitability?
  5. How does it compare to competitors on unit economics?

Phase 2 — Multi-Source Search Strategy

For each sub-question, issue 2–4 targeted searches using varied query angles:

[primary term] [year]
[primary term] site:official OR filetype:pdf
[primary term] analysis OR breakdown OR report
[primary term] vs [competitor]

Source Priority Tiers:

TierTypeTrust Weight
1Official docs, SEC filings, company blogs, government data, peer-reviewed papers1.0
2Major news outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg, FT), industry analysts (Gartner, CB Insights)0.85
3Tech blogs, newsletters, podcasts0.65
4Forums, Reddit, social media0.40

Minimum sources per report: 8 unique domains Target for complex topics: 15–25 sources


Phase 3 — Deep Crawl and Extraction

For each source, fetch the full page (not just the snippet), then extract structured claims:

  • Numerical facts (stats, dates, prices, percentages)
  • Named entities (people, companies, products)
  • Causal claims ("X caused Y because Z")
  • Comparative claims ("A is better than B")

Tag each claim with source URL, publish date, tier rating, and a paraphrase or verbatim quote under 15 words.

Extraction template per source:

source: https://example.com/article
published: 2026-04-12
tier: 2
claims:
  - text: "Company reached $100M ARR in Q1 2026"
    type: numerical
    confidence: high
  - text: "CEO stated profitability target by 2027"
    type: causal
    confidence: medium

Phase 4 — Cross-Reference and Conflict Resolution

4a. Claim Clustering

Group identical or related claims across sources. If 3+ Tier 1–2 sources agree, mark as Verified.

4b. Conflict Detection

Flag claims where sources contradict each other:

CONFLICT DETECTED
  Claim A: "Revenue is $50M ARR" — Source A, 2026-01
  Claim B: "Revenue is $80M ARR" — Source B, 2026-03
  Resolution: Use most recent Tier 1–2 source. Note discrepancy in report.

4c. Gap Detection

If a sub-question has zero Tier 1–2 sources, mark it [unverified] and flag it in the report.

4d. Confidence Scoring

Confidence = (sum of tier_weights x recency_factor) / num_claims

recency_factor:
  < 30 days:   1.0
  30–90 days:  0.9
  3–12 months: 0.75
  > 1 year:    0.60

Phase 5 — Report Synthesis

Report Structure

# [Topic] — Deep Research Report

> Researched: [date] | Sources: [N] | Confidence: [X]% | Sub-questions: [N]

---

## Executive Summary

2–4 sentence synthesis of the most important findings.
Lead with the single most important fact.

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Sub-question 1 title](#anchor)
2. [Sub-question 2 title](#anchor)
...
N.   Conflicts and Uncertainties
N+1. Sources

---

## 1. [Sub-question Title]

### Finding
One clear, direct answer to the sub-question.

### Evidence
- [Claim] — Source: [Name], [Date], Tier 1
- [Claim] — Source: [Name], [Date], Tier 2
- [Claim] — Source: [Name], [Date], unverified

### Confidence: [X]% | Coverage: [N] sources

---

## [Repeat for each sub-question]

---

## Conflicts and Uncertainties

| Topic | Claim A | Claim B | Resolution |
|-------|---------|---------|------------|
| Revenue | $50M (Source A) | $80M (Source B) | Use Source B (more recent) |

---

## Knowledge Gaps

- [Field X]: No Tier 1–2 sources found. Flagged as unverified.
- [Field Y]: Only sources older than 12 months available.

---

## Research Metadata

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total sources | N |
| Tier 1–2 sources | N |
| Sub-questions answered | N / N |
| Average confidence | X% |
| Date range of sources | YYYY-MM to YYYY-MM |
| Conflicts detected | N |
| Gaps flagged | N |

---

## Sources

| # | URL | Type | Tier | Date | Used For |
|---|-----|------|------|------|----------|
| 1 | https://... | Official | 1 | 2026-05-01 | Revenue data |
| 2 | https://... | News | 2 | 2026-04-10 | Funding round |

Phase 6 — Quality Gates

Run all checks before delivering the report. Fail = do not deliver until resolved.

GateRequirementAction if Fail
Source minimum8+ unique domainsRun additional search passes
Tier coverage40%+ Tier 1–2 sourcesFlag low-quality sourcing in report
Conflict resolutionAll conflicts documentedAdd to conflicts table
Gap flaggingAll unanswered sub-questions notedAdd to gaps section
Citation accuracyEvery claim has a sourceRemove or flag orphan claims
Recency50%+ sources within 12 monthsFlag stale data in report

Output Modes

Use a flag in the trigger to switch modes:

FlagModeDescription
(none)StandardFull report as specified above
[academic]AcademicAdds abstract, methodology, limitations, further research
[brief]Quick BriefExecutive summary + top 5 facts + source list. Max 300 words
[compare]ComparisonSide-by-side table of N items across shared dimensions

Iteration Protocol

If confidence is below 70% after the first pass:

ITERATION 2:
  - Re-run searches with refined queries
  - Target gaps identified in Phase 4
  - Fetch Tier 1 sources directly (company.com, arxiv.org, gov sites)
  - Update confidence scores
  - Note in report: "This section required 2 research iterations"

Maximum iterations: 3
If confidence remains below 60% after 3 iterations, deliver with prominent uncertainty warnings.

Anti-Hallucination Rules

  1. Never invent a statistic. If a number is not sourced, write [no data found].
  2. Never paraphrase into a stronger claim. If a source says "may reach", do not write "will reach".
  3. Never merge two sources' claims into one sentence without attributing both.
  4. Never omit a conflict because it is inconvenient — surface it in the conflicts table.
  5. Date every claim. Undated claims receive a recency penalty in confidence scoring.
  6. If uncertain, say so explicitly using [unverified] or [disputed] inline tags.
  7. Never reproduce more than 15 words verbatim from any single source.

Trigger Examples

/deep-research What is the current state of fusion energy?
/deep-research [academic] Impact of LLMs on scientific paper quality
/deep-research [compare] React vs Vue vs Svelte for large-scale apps
/deep-research [brief] What caused the 2023 banking crisis?

Skill Outputs

FileDescription
{topic}/report.mdFull research report
{topic}/sources.yamlStructured source list with tier ratings
{topic}/claims.yamlAll extracted claims with provenance
{topic}/conflicts.mdConflict log with resolutions
{topic}/metadata.jsonConfidence scores, coverage stats, iteration log

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.