deep-research
Skill39 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Deep, iterative, multi-source research that explores a topic from multiple perspectives, detects contradictions, and produces a comprehensive vault note with fact-level citations and a confidence map. Use this skill whenever the user says /deep-research, "deep research X", "research X thoroughly", "investigate X deeply", "I need to really understand X", or wants research that goes beyond a quick web search. Also use when the user wants to understand a complex, contested, or multi-faceted topic, compare competing approaches with evidence, or build a comprehensive mental model they can trust for decisions. This is heavier than /research — it searches web, academic papers, Reddit, and the vault, then loops through exploration and critique rounds until the evidence base is solid. When in doubt between /research and /deep-research, prefer this one if the topic is complex, contested, or the user wants depth over speed.
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/init/scaffold/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- book-analyzerSkill
- courseSkill
- initSkill
- lectureSkill
- paper-discoverSkill
- processSkill
- recallSkill
- researchSkill
- slide-makerSkill
- synthesizeSkill
- vault-graphSkill
- youtubeSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 56
Default (no flag): balanced — perspective discovery, 2-4 rounds, opus for synthesis
- Distinctive: line 65
Resume check: Before creating, check if the workspace already exists:
- Very specific: line 69
If state.md exists, read it and ask the user: "Found incomplete research on [topic] (round N).
- Distinctive: line 81
Read the agent definition:
- Very specific: line 102
After the planner completes, read state.md briefly and tell the user:
- Distinctive: line 112
Read the agent definition and source tiers reference:
- Very specific: line 118
Read ideas.md and pick the 3-5 highest-priority unexplored ideas.
- Distinctive: line 142
Wait for all explorer agents to complete.
- Very specific: line 147
Update ideas.md — mark explored ideas as [x].
- Very specific: line 188
Read the critic's output: {WORK_DIR}/gaps/critique-round-{N}.md
- Distinctive: line 190
Check the recommendation: CONTINUE or SUFFICIENT.
- Very specific: line 193
Read updated ideas.md for new angles
- Distinctive: line 202
If the latest round's explorers produced < 3 new substantive claims → stop
- Very specific: line 217
Read the final critique, all findings files, and state.md.
- Very specific: line 294
Create the vault note using mcp__obsidian-vault__write_note or Write:
- Distinctive: line 359
All sources are web — no papers, no Reddit, no diversity
- Distinctive: line 360
No confidence map — claims everything with equal certainty
- Distinctive: line 371
Explorer agent fails: Check the output file. If missing, log the failure and continue with other angles — don't block the entire research …
“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
<Purpose>
Iterative, multi-perspective research that explores broadly and goes deep. Unlike
`/research` (single-pass, web-only, 5-10 sources), this skill:
- Discovers PERSPECTIVES before searching (not just sub-questions)
- Searches 4 source types in parallel: web, academic papers, Reddit, vault
- Runs an exploration → critique loop that finds gaps, contradictions, and new angles
- Uses an outline-first approach to prevent hallucination
- Produces a note with fact-level citations, a confidence map, and explicit uncertaintyThe architecture is inspired by Stanford's STORM (perspective discovery + outline-first),
Anthropic's multi-agent research system (parallel exploration + intelligent critique),
and pi-autoresearch (living state files that survive context resets).
</Purpose>
<Use_When>
- User wants DEEP understanding, not a quick summary
- Topic is complex, contested, or multi-faceted
- User needs to make a decision based on the research
- User wants to compare competing approaches with evidence
- User explicitly asks for /deep-research or "thorough research" </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants a quick answer (use /research instead)
- User wants to find academic papers specifically (use /paper-discover)
- User wants to process an existing vault note (use /process)
- User wants cross-domain vault synthesis (use /synthesize) </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Steps>Stage 0: SETUP
Parse $ARGUMENTS for the topic and optional depth flag:
--quick: faster, fewer rounds, sonnet everywhere, no perspective discovery--deep: more rounds, opus for critic and synthesis, outline reviewed by user- Default (no flag): balanced — perspective discovery, 2-4 rounds, opus for synthesis
Create the workspace:
TOPIC_SLUG=$(echo "$TOPIC" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | sed 's/[^a-z0-9]/-/g' | sed 's/--*/-/g' | cut -c1-30)
WORK_DIR="temp/research-${TOPIC_SLUG}"
mkdir -p "$WORK_DIR"/{findings,gaps}Resume check: Before creating, check if the workspace already exists:
ls "$WORK_DIR/state.md" 2>/dev/nullIf state.md exists, read it and ask the user: "Found incomplete research on
[topic] (round N). Resume or start fresh?" If resuming, read state.md to
determine which stage to skip to.
Tell the user what's happening:
Deep researching "{topic}" ({depth mode}).
Setting up workspace at {WORK_DIR}...Stage 1: PLAN — Decompose + Discover Perspectives
Read the agent definition:
Read(".claude/skills/deep-research/agents/research-planner.md")Launch the planner agent:
Agent(
model="sonnet",
prompt="You are Research Planner. Follow these instructions exactly:
[INSERT FULL CONTENT OF agents/research-planner.md HERE]
TOPIC: {topic}
DEPTH_MODE: {quick|standard|deep}
WORK_DIR: {WORK_DIR}
Write state.md and ideas.md to the WORK_DIR."
)After the planner completes, read state.md briefly and tell the user:
Perspectives identified: {list}
Sub-questions: {count}
Exploration ideas: {count}
Starting exploration...Stage 2: EXPLORE — Parallel Deep Dives
Read the agent definition and source tiers reference:
Read(".claude/skills/deep-research/agents/research-explorer.md")
Read(".claude/skills/deep-research/references/source-tiers.md")Read ideas.md and pick the 3-5 highest-priority unexplored ideas.
For EACH selected idea, launch an explorer agent in the background:
Agent(
model="sonnet",
run_in_background=true,
prompt="You are Research Explorer. Follow these instructions exactly:
[INSERT FULL CONTENT OF agents/research-explorer.md HERE]
SOURCE TIERS REFERENCE:
[INSERT FULL CONTENT OF references/source-tiers.md HERE]
ANGLE: {the idea to explore}
PERSPECTIVE: {which perspective this serves}
QUERIES: {the search queries from ideas.md}
STATE_CONTEXT: {summary from state.md — what's already known}
OUTPUT_FILE: {WORK_DIR}/findings/angle-{NN}-{slug}.md
Write your findings to OUTPUT_FILE using the Write tool."
)Wait for all explorer agents to complete. Verify each output file exists:
ls {WORK_DIR}/findings/Update ideas.md — mark explored ideas as [x]. If explorers discovered new
threads, append them to ideas.md under "## Discovered During Research".
Tell the user:
Round {N} complete: explored {count} angles, found {count} sources.
Running critique...Stage 3: CRITIQUE — The Intelligence Layer
For --quick mode: skip the critic agent entirely. Instead, briefly review the
findings yourself — check if any sub-questions are obviously thin. If so, do ONE
more targeted search round. Then proceed to Stage 5.
For standard and --deep mode: Launch the critic agent.
Read the agent definition:
Read(".claude/skills/deep-research/agents/research-critic.md")Agent(
model="opus",
prompt="You are Research Critic. Follow these instructions exactly:
[INSERT FULL CONTENT OF agents/research-critic.md HERE]
WORK_DIR: {WORK_DIR}
ROUND: {current round number}
Read all files in the workspace, then write your critique to
{WORK_DIR}/gaps/critique-round-{N}.md.
Also update {WORK_DIR}/state.md with the coverage map.
If you have new research ideas, append them to {WORK_DIR}/ideas.md."
)Stage 4: DECIDE — Continue or Proceed
Read the critic's output: {WORK_DIR}/gaps/critique-round-{N}.md
Check the recommendation: CONTINUE or SUFFICIENT.
If CONTINUE AND within guardrails:
- Read updated
ideas.mdfor new angles - Loop back to Stage 2 with the new ideas
If SUFFICIENT OR guardrails hit:
- Proceed to Stage 5
Guardrails (override critic recommendation if needed):
- Max rounds: 2 (quick), 4 (standard), 8 (deep)
- Max total source files: 15 (quick), 30 (standard), 50 (deep)
- If the latest round's explorers produced < 3 new substantive claims → stop
- Count rounds by reading how many
critique-round-*.mdfiles exist
Tell the user:
Critic says: {CONTINUE/SUFFICIENT}. {brief reason}
{If continuing: "Exploring {N} more angles..."}
{If done: "Evidence base ready. Building outline..."}Stage 5: OUTLINE — Structure Before Content
Build an outline that maps each section to its supporting evidence. This is the STORM discipline — commit to structure before writing to prevent hallucination.
Read the final critique, all findings files, and state.md. Then write
{WORK_DIR}/outline.md with this structure:
# Outline: {Topic}
## TL;DR
- {Key finding 1} ← supported by: angle-{NN}, angle-{NN}
- {Key finding 2} ← supported by: angle-{NN}
- {Key finding 3} ← supported by: angle-{NN}, angle-{NN}
## Section: {Theme 1 — insight as heading}
- Key point: {insight}
- Sources: angle-{NN} (claims X,Y), angle-{NN} (claim Z)
- Vault links: [[(Type) Note]] if relevant
## Section: {Theme 2 — insight heading}
- Key point: {insight}
- Sources: ...
## Section: Where Experts Disagree
- Contradiction 1: angle-{NN} vs angle-{NN} on {topic}
- Contradiction 2: ...
## Section: What's Still Uncertain
- {Gap from critic}
- {Single-source claim}
## Confidence Map Notes
- {Finding}: {confidence level} — {evidence basis}For --deep mode: Show the outline to the user and wait for approval:
"Here's the outline. Want me to adjust anything before I write the full note?"
For standard and --quick: Proceed automatically.
Stage 6: SYNTHESIZE — Write the Research Note
Read the agent definition:
Read(".claude/skills/deep-research/agents/research-synthesizer.md")Launch the synthesizer:
Agent(
model="opus", # sonnet for --quick
prompt="You are Research Synthesizer. Follow these instructions exactly:
[INSERT FULL CONTENT OF agents/research-synthesizer.md HERE]
WORK_DIR: {WORK_DIR}
OUTPUT_FILE: {WORK_DIR}/synthesis.md
Read outline.md, all findings files, all gap files, and state.md.
Write the complete vault note body to OUTPUT_FILE.
Do NOT include frontmatter — just the note content starting with # title."
)Stage 7: INTEGRATE — Create Vault Note
- Read
{WORK_DIR}/synthesis.md - Generate timestamp:
date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S - Determine subfolder — match the topic to existing vault folders:
- ML/AI topics →
notes/ml/ - Startup/business →
notes/startup/ - Psychology →
notes/psychology/ - Finance →
notes/finance/ - Default →
notes/research/
- ML/AI topics →
Create the vault note using
mcp__obsidian-vault__write_noteor Write:--- id: {YYYYMMDDHHMMSS} type: note processing_status: processed created_date: {YYYY-MM-DD} updated_date: {YYYY-MM-DD} --- {synthesis.md content}- Report to user:
Research complete! Created: {note path} - Sources: {N} web, {N} academic, {N} community, {N} vault - Exploration rounds: {N} - Contradictions found: {N} - Key uncertainty: {biggest gap} Suggested next steps: - Extract terms: {list of concepts for extraction} - Related research: {follow-up topics} - Vault connections: {notes that should link to this} Workspace at {WORK_DIR}/ — delete when done.
</Steps><Tool_Usage>
- Agent: 4 agent types — planner (sonnet), explorer (sonnet, parallel), critic (opus), synthesizer (opus)
- WebSearch: Multi-query web search within explorer agents
- WebFetch: Deep-read URLs within explorer agents
- Bash: Workspace creation, timestamp, search_papers.py execution
- Grep/Glob: Vault search within planner agent
- MCP obsidian-vault: Vault search and note creation
- MCP reddit: Community source search within explorer agents
- Read: Agent definitions, workspace files, source tiers reference
- Write: Workspace files (state, ideas, outline), vault note creation </Tool_Usage>
<Examples>
<Good>
User: /deep-research context engineering for AI agents
1. Setup → temp/research-context-engineering/
2. Plan → 4 perspectives (researcher, practitioner, framework builder, skeptic),
6 sub-questions, 12 exploration ideas
3. Round 1 → 4 explorer agents, 16 sources (web + papers + Reddit)
4. Critique → "practitioner perspective is thin, contradictions on context window
vs. summarization tradeoff, missing: cost analysis angle"
5. Round 2 → 3 more explorers targeting gaps, 9 new sources
6. Critique → "SUFFICIENT — good coverage, 2 genuine ongoing debates to present"
7. Outline → 5 themes + disagreements + uncertainties, all mapped to sources
8. Synthesize → 55-bullet note with 25 sources, confidence map, 4 vault connections
9. Integrate → notes/ml/(Research) Context Engineering for AI Agents.md
</Good><Bad>
- Searches once and stops — no critique, no gap-filling
- Creates a note that just lists what each source said
- Ignores the vault — no wikilinks, no checking what already exists
- All sources are web — no papers, no Reddit, no diversity
- No confidence map — claims everything with equal certainty
- No "Where Experts Disagree" — hides contradictions instead of presenting them
- Doesn't write workspace files — can't resume if interrupted
</Bad>
</Examples><Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- Topic too broad ("deep research AI"): Ask user to narrow. Suggest 2-3 specific angles.
- No results from any source: Inform user, offer to create a vault-only synthesis from existing notes.
- Mostly paywalled academic sources: Note limitation, prioritize open-access and preprints.
- Topic already deeply covered in vault: Show existing notes, ask if user wants fresh perspectives or an update.
- Explorer agent fails: Check the output file. If missing, log the failure and continue with other angles — don't block the entire research on one failed agent.
- Context getting large: The workspace files ARE the state. If context is approaching limits, the user can restart and the skill will offer to resume from the workspace. </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
$ARGUMENTS
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
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.

