agentleFS
tuan3wtuan3w/obsidian-vault-agent/skills/research/SKILL.md

research

Skill39 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Research a topic and create a new note in the vault. Use this skill whenever the user wants to learn about a topic they don't know yet, investigate a question, explore an idea, or asks "what is X", "research X", "tell me about X", "I want to understand X", "look into X". Also triggers on /research. This is for BROAD research (web + vault) — for academic papers specifically, use /paper-discover instead.

189 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects 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 43 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

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Don't wait for confirmation unless the topic is ambiguous — just show and go.

    line 59
  2. Distinctive:

    Before hitting the web, check what the vault already contains:

    line 63
  3. Distinctive:

    Use different query phrasings per sub-question (not just the topic repeated)

    line 93
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer recent sources (add "2025" or "2026" to queries when freshness matters)

    line 94
  5. Distinctive:

    If initial results are thin, reformulate and search again

    line 96
  6. Distinctive:

    Run searches in parallel where possible (multiple WebSearch calls in one turn).

    line 98
  7. Distinctive:

    After the first search round, review what you have:

    line 102
  8. Distinctive:

    Run 1-2 targeted follow-up searches to fill gaps.

    line 107
  9. Distinctive:

    Read the agent definition:

    line 112
  10. Distinctive:

    Grep/Glob: Search vault for existing knowledge

    line 172
  11. Distinctive:

    Write: Create the research note

    line 175
  12. Very specific:

    Create → notes/ml/(Research) RLHF vs DPO - Alignment Methods Compared.md </Good>

    line 188
  13. Distinctive:

    No source links — claims without evidence </Bad> </Examples>

    line 196

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 169 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
<Purpose> Deep research on any topic — search the web and the vault, then synthesize findings into a high-quality vault note. Unlike a quick web search, this skill decomposes the question, searches multiple angles, checks what the vault already knows, and produces a note with source links, confidence levels, and vault connections. </Purpose>

<Use_When>

  • User asks to research a topic ("research quantum error correction")
  • User wants to understand something new ("what is RLHF and why does it matter?")
  • User wants a research note created in the vault
  • User uses /research with a topic </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

  • User wants to find academic papers specifically (use /paper-discover)
  • User wants to process an existing vault note (use /process)
  • User wants to synthesize across existing vault notes (use /synthesize)
  • User has a YouTube video to process (use /youtube) </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Steps>

Stage 1: PLAN — Decompose the Question

Parse the topic from $ARGUMENTS. If vague, ask one clarifying question.

Break the research topic into 3-5 specific sub-questions that together cover the topic well. Think about:

  • What IS it? (definition, core mechanism)
  • Why does it matter? (motivation, impact, who cares)
  • How does it work? (process, architecture, method)
  • What are the tradeoffs? (limitations, alternatives, open problems)
  • Where is it going? (trends, recent developments, future)

Present the sub-questions to the user briefly:

Researching "topic". Sub-questions:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
Searching now.

Don't wait for confirmation unless the topic is ambiguous — just show and go.

Stage 2: SEARCH VAULT — What Do We Already Know?

Before hitting the web, check what the vault already contains:

Grep(pattern="KEYWORD", path="notes/", glob="*.md", head_limit=15)

Also try MCP search if available:

mcp__obsidian-vault__search_notes(query="KEYWORD", limit=10)

Note any existing vault notes that are relevant — these become [[wikilinks]] in the output and inform what the web search should FOCUS on (gaps, not repeats).

Stage 3: SEARCH WEB — Multi-Query, Parallel

For each sub-question, run a targeted WebSearch:

WebSearch(query="specific sub-question query", num_results=5)

Then WebFetch the 3-5 most promising URLs to get full content:

WebFetch(url="URL", prompt="Extract key facts, data, and insights about [sub-question]. Include specific numbers, dates, names, and technical details.")

Search strategy:

  • Use different query phrasings per sub-question (not just the topic repeated)
  • Prefer recent sources (add "2025" or "2026" to queries when freshness matters)
  • Mix source types: technical blogs, official docs, news, research summaries
  • If initial results are thin, reformulate and search again

Run searches in parallel where possible (multiple WebSearch calls in one turn).

Stage 4: DEEPEN — Find Gaps and Conflicts

After the first search round, review what you have:

  • Which sub-questions are well-answered? Which are thin?
  • Are there conflicting claims across sources?
  • Did any source mention something surprising worth following up?

Run 1-2 targeted follow-up searches to fill gaps. This second pass is what separates good research from a quick Google.

Stage 5: SYNTHESIZE — Build the Note

Read the agent definition:

Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/research-noter.md")

Launch the research-noter agent:

Agent(
  subagent_type="general-purpose",
  model="sonnet",
  prompt="You are Research Noter. Follow these instructions exactly:

  [INSERT FULL CONTENT OF agents/research-noter.md HERE]

  RESEARCH TOPIC: [topic]
  SUB-QUESTIONS: [list]

  VAULT CONTEXT (existing notes on this topic):
  [vault search results]

  WEB FINDINGS:
  [organized by sub-question, with source URLs]

  Produce the note body following the Output Format. Do NOT include frontmatter."
)

Stage 6: INTEGRATE — Create the Vault Note

  1. Generate timestamp ID: date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S
  2. Determine subfolder — if the topic clearly fits an existing folder, use it. Otherwise default to notes/research/. Create the folder if needed.
  3. Create the note:
---
id: YYYYMMDDHHMMSS
type: note
processing_status: processed
created_date: YYYY-MM-DD
updated_date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

[AGENT OUTPUT — starts with # title]
  1. Report to user:
    • Note path
    • Number of sources used
    • Key vault connections found
    • Any gaps flagged as uncertain
</Steps>

<Tool_Usage>

  • WebSearch: Multi-query web search (one per sub-question)
  • WebFetch: Deep-read promising URLs for full content
  • Grep/Glob: Search vault for existing knowledge
  • MCP search_notes: Vault search via Obsidian MCP
  • Agent: Synthesis agent (sonnet)
  • Write: Create the research note
  • Bash: Generate timestamp ID </Tool_Usage>
<Examples> <Good> User: /research RLHF vs DPO for language model alignment 1. Plan → 4 sub-questions: what is each, how do they differ mechanically, what are the empirical results, what's the current trend 2. Vault search → found (Term) RLHF, (Paper) DPO paper, 3 related notes 3. Web search → 8 sources across sub-questions, including recent benchmarks 4. Deepen → gap on compute costs, found 2 more sources 5. Synthesize → 5-section note with 12 sources, 6 vault wikilinks 6. Create → notes/ml/(Research) RLHF vs DPO - Alignment Methods Compared.md </Good><Bad> - Searches once and stops — no gap-finding, no deepening - Creates a note that's just a list of links with no synthesis - Ignores what the vault already knows about the topic - Produces a wall of text instead of structured, bullet-point insights - No source links — claims without evidence </Bad> </Examples>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

  • Topic too broad ("research AI"): Ask user to narrow down
  • No web results: Inform user, offer to create note from vault knowledge only
  • Mostly paywalled sources: Note the limitation, use what's available
  • Topic already well-covered in vault: Show existing notes, ask if user wants a fresh perspective or an update </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

$ARGUMENTS

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.