Research current facts, compare options, or investigate people and companies using public sources and supplied context. This skill selects an appropriate research workflow and separates evidence, inference, and recommendations, including dates where freshness matters.
Evidence-first current-state research workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants fresh facts, comparisons, enrichment, or a recommendation built from current public evidence and any supplied local context.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this when the user asks to research something current, compare options, enrich people or companies, or turn repeated lookups into a monitored workflow.
This is the operator wrapper around the repo's research stack. It is not a replacement for deep-research, exa-search, or market-research; it tells you when and how to use them together.
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
exa-search for fast current-web discoverydeep-research for multi-source synthesis with citationsmarket-research when the end result should be a recommendation or ranked decisionlead-intelligence when the task is people/company targeting instead of generic researchknowledge-ops when the result should be stored in durable context afterwardNormalize any supplied material into:
Do not restart the analysis from zero if the user already built part of the model.
Choose the right lane before searching:
exa-search for fast discoverydeep-research when synthesis or multiple sources mattermarket-research when the outcome should end in a recommendationlead-intelligence when the real ask is target ranking or warm-path discoveryFor important claims, say whether they are:
Freshness-sensitive answers should include concrete dates.
If the user is likely to ask the same research question repeatedly, say so explicitly and recommend a monitoring or workflow layer instead of repeating the same manual search forever.
QUESTION TYPE
- factual / comparison / enrichment / monitoring
EVIDENCE
- sourced facts
- user-provided context
INFERENCE
- what follows from the evidence
RECOMMENDATION
- answer or next move
- whether this should become a monitor
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.
Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.
Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.
Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.
Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.
Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.