agentleFS
tonydzitonydzi/second-brain-starter-kit/skills/research-swarm/SKILL.md

research-swarm

Skill6 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Turn any hypothesis, however fringe, into an argument map rather than a verdict: five independent lenses (consensus, skeptic, frontier, historian, experimental design), then a synthesis of for and against, evidence quality, a confidence tier and the cheapest decisive experiment. Triggers: "/research-swarm <hypothesis>", "map the arguments on X".

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

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

    Keep the synthesized recall as recall_context (the operator's prior notes/leanings on the topic — feeds every lens so the swarm builds on …

    line 39
  2. Very specific:

    Write the map as a vault note in 03-Insights\Research-Swarm\<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md (frontmatter type: insight, origin: anton, tags: …

    line 49
  3. Distinctive:

    Default = 5 lenses, single pass.

    line 61

≈ “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

/research-swarm — an argument map for any hypothesis (a swarm of research agents)

🧒 When reporting to a non-technical operator: end with a child-simple "In plain words" recap in their language. ⚖️ Doctrine: this skill IS the operational arm of protocol-epistemic-neutrality-fringe-research. NEVER judge or mock the hypothesis. Consensus ≠ truth. Build a map of arguments + confidence — an investigation, not a verdict. Bounded by operating-agreement safety invariants (no illegal/harm/bypass/fraud).

When to use

The operator hands a hypothesis — frontier science (antigravity, perpetual motion, anomalous materials, radical longevity, models of consciousness/time), an unusual business model (DAO/network states, no-employee AI co, token labor markets), or a controversial/stigmatized vertical (adult, gaming, gambling). Goal: a balanced, grounded argument map, not a yes/no.

The 5 lenses (run as a parallel swarm)

  1. Consensus — steelman the current mainstream/established view. What does well-replicated science / the market actually hold, and why.
  2. Skeptic — strongest arguments AGAINST. Where the idea breaks, hidden assumptions, falsification points, known failure modes.
  3. Frontier — strongest arguments FOR. Steelman the believer: what would have to be true, adjacent emerging evidence, why it's not obviously impossible.
  4. Historian — precedents and base rates. Ideas once dismissed then vindicated (and once hyped then debunked); the historical analog for THIS idea.
  5. Experimental-Design — what measurement/experiment would confirm or refute, the cheapest decisive test, what data to gather first.

Each lens does light, targeted web grounding (WebSearch/WebFetch) — claims should be evidenced, not just model priors — but stays token-aware. The synthesis NEVER returns a verdict; it returns a confidence tier + open questions.

Control node — Verifier-Calibrator (added 2026-06-15, via Alpha R+DR)

After synthesis, one Verifier-Calibrator node runs (the swarm's acceptance function, not another opinion). It (1) audits the strongest for/against claims — supported / partial / unsupported, (2) re-derives the confidence tier from evidence (support density + cross-lens agreement), not vibe, lowering tiers that rest on unsupported or single-lens claims, and (3) may abstain: the new tier insufficient is a first-class honest answer when evidence is too thin to place the idea on the established→fringe axis. The calibrated tier + claim audit + flags surface in the note and dashboard. This is the DR-recommended control plane over the 5-lens content plane (gaps: no verifier / qualitative-not-calibrated tiers / no abstain lane). Decision: vault 02-Decisions\decision-research-swarm-v2-upgrade.

How to run

Step 0 — parse the hypothesis from the operator's message (everything after the trigger). If it's a vague one-liner, ask ONE clarifying question first (scope/domain), else proceed.

Step 1 — RECALL first (token law — cheap before LLM/web). Pull what the operator already thinks on the topic:

python "$IMPORTS_ROOT/brain_ask.py" "<hypothesis>" --k 8

Keep the synthesized recall as recall_context (the operator's prior notes/leanings on the topic — feeds every lens so the swarm builds on their own thinking, not from zero).

Step 2 — run the swarm via the Workflow tool (this skill IS your explicit opt-in to orchestrate):

Workflow({ scriptPath: "%USERPROFILE%\.claude\\skills\\research-swarm\\workflow.js",
           args: { hypothesis: "<hypothesis>", recall_context: "<from step 1>" } })

The script fans out the 5 lenses (parallel barrier — synthesis needs all), a synthesis agent merges them, then the Verifier-Calibrator audits the strongest claims and calibrates the tier (or abstains → insufficient). Returns the structured argument map object with a calibration block.

Step 3 — persist (backup first). python "$IMPORTS_ROOT/vault_backup.py" then:

  • Write the map as a vault note in 03-Insights\Research-Swarm\<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md (frontmatter type: insight, origin: anton, tags: [research-swarm, argument-map]; body = for/against tables, confidence tier, historical analogs, open questions, the decisive experiment). Link it to [[protocol-epistemic-neutrality-fringe-research]] + [[insight-glavnaya-tsel-tsifrovoj-dvojnik]] and any concept the topic touches (no-orphan: ≥1 inbound).
  • Dump the map object to <skill>\last_map.json and build the visual:
python "$USERPROFILE/.claude/skills/research-swarm/build_argmap_dashboard.py" <map.json> <out.html>

Dashboard → $OBSIDIAN_VAULT/_Dashboards/Research-Swarm/<slug>.html. Offer to open it (the operator works by eye).

Step 4 — reindex so the new note is searchable: python "$IMPORTS_ROOT/brain_embed_update.py".

Step 5 — report to the operator: the confidence tier, the 2-3 strongest for/against, the cheapest decisive experiment, link to the dashboard — and the ELI5 recap. NEVER editorialize a verdict; present the map.

Scaling (AK-47)

Default = 5 lenses, single pass. For a big/important hypothesis the operator can say "go deeper" → add a second round per lens or 3-vote adversarial verification of the strongest claims (loop-until-dry). Don't over-build by default.

Relation

Operational arm of vault protocol-epistemic-neutrality-fringe-research · memory [[epistemic-neutrality]]. Pairs with /alfa-search-recall-deepresearch (R+DR — recall→gap→deep-research→synthesis; the swarm is the multi-lens synthesis engine). Distinct from /ask (single recall) and /deep-research (web fan-out, single perspective). Serves [[main-goals]] goal #1 — the twin reasons like the operator-the-researcher.


<!--kit-footer-->

Like this skill? It is one of 100 in second-brain-starter-kit: the second brain we built for ourselves and run every day at Palo Alto AI Research Lab. Install the whole set with npx skills add tonydzi/second-brain-starter-kit. Everything is open source and free, so take what you need.

Flagships worth a look on their own: secondop-panel (a second opinion from a panel of external models), claude-memory-tidy (stop your agent's memory from rotting), telegram-mcp-kit (your own Telegram over MCP in about 15 minutes).

Author: Anton Dziatkovskii, Palo Alto AI Research Lab. Telegram @tonydzi - WhatsApp +1 341 222 9178 - X @Tony_Stef_

Engineers: want to test-drive this setup? Message me. I hand out free starter seeds to engineers who test and report back, and custom skill requests are welcome.

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.