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
- ridelink0/ultimate-frontend-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrisblattman/claudeblattmantheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- genericService/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ourostack/ouroboros-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mahsumaktas/agent-evolution-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- insight68/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
nicepkgSkillcommunity-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
nicepkgSkillph-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-MoorerSkillacademic-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-MoorerSkillacademic-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
xfstudioSkillmicro-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
stophobiaSkillsurprise-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
Other versions196 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 196
- affaan-m/ECC★ 246ksame name
- bytedance/deer-flow★ 85ksame name
- Imbad0202/academic-research-skills★ 56ksame name
- THU-MAIC/OpenMAIC★ 43ksame name
- HKUSTDial/Supervisor-Skills★ 12ksame name
- genspark-ai/genoffice★ 12ksame name
- advaitpaliwal/feynman★ 10ksame name
- companion-inc/feynman★ 10ksame name
- getcompanion-ai/feynman★ 10ksame name
- jordan-gibbs/hyperresearch★ 4.4ksame name
186 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.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstormingSkill
- cavemanSkill
- deep-research-agentSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- improveSkill
- loop-meSkill
- memorySkill
- ponytailSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- web-scraperSkill
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
- Very specific: line 126
If a sub-question has zero Tier 1–2 sources, mark it [unverified] and flag it in the report.
- Distinctive: line 229
Run all checks before delivering the report.
- Distinctive: line 244
Use a flag in the trigger to switch modes:
- Distinctive: line 257
If confidence is below 70% after the first pass:
- Very specific: line 275
Never invent a statistic. If a number is not sourced, write [no data found].
- Distinctive: line 276
Never paraphrase into a stronger claim.
- Distinctive: line 277
Never merge two sources' claims into one sentence without attributing both.
- Distinctive: line 278
Never omit a conflict because it is inconvenient — surface it in the conflicts table.
- Very specific: line 280
If uncertain, say so explicitly using [unverified] or [disputed] inline tags.
- Distinctive: line 281
Never reproduce more than 15 words verbatim from any single source.
“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.
Files
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 → DeliverPhase 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:
- What is Company X's current revenue model?
- What are its reported ARR and revenue figures?
- What is its burn rate and cost structure?
- What do investors say about its path to profitability?
- 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:
| Tier | Type | Trust Weight |
| 1 | Official docs, SEC filings, company blogs, government data, peer-reviewed papers | 1.0 |
| 2 | Major news outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg, FT), industry analysts (Gartner, CB Insights) | 0.85 |
| 3 | Tech blogs, newsletters, podcasts | 0.65 |
| 4 | Forums, Reddit, social media | 0.40 |
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: mediumPhase 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: 0.60Phase 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.
| Gate | Requirement | Action if Fail |
| Source minimum | 8+ unique domains | Run additional search passes |
| Tier coverage | 40%+ Tier 1–2 sources | Flag low-quality sourcing in report |
| Conflict resolution | All conflicts documented | Add to conflicts table |
| Gap flagging | All unanswered sub-questions noted | Add to gaps section |
| Citation accuracy | Every claim has a source | Remove or flag orphan claims |
| Recency | 50%+ sources within 12 months | Flag stale data in report |
Output Modes
Use a flag in the trigger to switch modes:
| Flag | Mode | Description |
| (none) | Standard | Full report as specified above |
[academic] | Academic | Adds abstract, methodology, limitations, further research |
[brief] | Quick Brief | Executive summary + top 5 facts + source list. Max 300 words |
[compare] | Comparison | Side-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
- Never invent a statistic. If a number is not sourced, write
[no data found]. - Never paraphrase into a stronger claim. If a source says "may reach", do not write "will reach".
- Never merge two sources' claims into one sentence without attributing both.
- Never omit a conflict because it is inconvenient — surface it in the conflicts table.
- Date every claim. Undated claims receive a recency penalty in confidence scoring.
- If uncertain, say so explicitly using
[unverified]or[disputed]inline tags. - 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
| File | Description |
{topic}/report.md | Full research report |
{topic}/sources.yaml | Structured source list with tier ratings |
{topic}/claims.yaml | All extracted claims with provenance |
{topic}/conflicts.md | Conflict log with resolutions |
{topic}/metadata.json | Confidence scores, coverage stats, iteration log |
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.

