Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

best-practice-research

[OMX] Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9 stars(GitHub 9 + cccskills 0)

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Best-Practice Research

Use this skill when a task depends on current external best practices, version-aware guidance, standards, official recommendations, or upstream behavior. This is a workflow wrapper: it routes evidence gathering and synthesis; it is not a new research authority and it does not replace researcher.

Purpose

Produce a cited, reusable best-practice answer or handoff that separates current external evidence from repo-local facts and dependency-selection decisions. For pre-planning investigation, this is the ordinary first research wrapper: gather official/upstream evidence, then hand it to $ralplan or the caller as planning input. Do not present $best-practice-research as a final architecture component or as a validator-gated research loop.

Terminal By Default

This skill is terminal and read-only by default. It gathers evidence and produces a cited recommendation with a handoff, then stops. Do not write or edit files, create or amend commits, run mutating commands, or otherwise modify repository state under this skill — even when the question has clear implementation implications. When implementation is warranted, stop and hand off rather than continuing: name $ralplan for planning and $ultragoal, $team, or executor for execution, and resume only after the user explicitly switches to that workflow.

Activate When

  • The user asks for best practices, recommended approach, current guidance, official recommendations, standards, or version-aware external behavior.
  • $ralplan, $deep-interview, $team, or another workflow needs current external evidence before planning or execution can be correct.
  • The task involves an already chosen technology and needs authoritative usage guidance, migration notes, API behavior, lifecycle rules, or current safety guidance.

Do Not Activate When

  • The answer is fully repo-local; use explore for codebase facts.
  • The main question is whether to adopt, replace, upgrade, or compare dependencies; use dependency-expert.
  • The user only needs implementation against already-grounded requirements; use executor, $ralph, or $team as appropriate.
  • The task can be answered from stable local project conventions without current external lookup.

Specialist Routing

  1. Use explore first for brownfield facts: current code usage, local constraints, versions, config, and integration points.
  2. Use researcher for official/upstream docs, release notes, standards, migration guides, source-backed examples, and current best-practice evidence for an already chosen technology.
  3. Use dependency-expert only for adoption/upgrade/replacement/comparison decisions.
  4. Return to the caller with explicit evidence, uncertainty, and any implementation handoff constraints.

Source-Quality Rules

  • Prefer official documentation, upstream source, release notes, changelogs, standards, and maintainer guidance.
  • Include source URLs for material claims.
  • State date/version context for current best-practice claims.
  • Label third-party summaries as supplemental; do not use them before official/upstream sources.
  • Flag stale, conflicting, undocumented, or version-mismatched evidence.
  • Do not over-fetch: gather the smallest evidence set that can support the decision.

Workflow

  1. Classify the question: conceptual best practice, implementation guidance, migration/version guidance, standards/compliance guidance, or mixed local + external guidance.
  2. Gather repo-local facts with explore when local usage or constraints affect the answer.
  3. Gather external evidence with researcher when current or version-aware practice affects correctness.
  4. Synthesize a concise answer with source quality, version/date context, caveats, and an implementation or planning handoff.
  5. Stop when the answer is grounded enough for the caller; otherwise report the exact blocker or specialist handoff needed.

Output Contract

## Best-Practice Research: <question>

### Direct Recommendation
<actionable guidance or decision support>

### Evidence Used
- Official/upstream: <source URL> — <what it establishes>
- Supplemental, if any: <source URL> — <why it is secondary>

### Version / Date Context
<versions, dates, release channels, or unknowns>

### Repo-Local Context
<facts from explore, or "not needed">

### Boundaries / Non-goals
<what this research does not decide>

### Handoff
<planning/execution/test implications; name the next workflow — `$ralplan` for planning, `$ultragoal`/`$team`/`executor` for execution — and note that this skill stops here unless the user explicitly switches workflows>

Stop Rules

  • Stop after a source-backed recommendation is reusable by the caller.
  • Stop and route upward if the task becomes dependency comparison, broad architecture, or implementation.
  • Do not continue researching when remaining work would only polish wording rather than change the recommendation.
  • This skill never implements. After delivering the recommendation and handoff, stop; do not modify repo files or repo state. Resume only when the user explicitly switches to a planning or implementation workflow named in the handoff.

Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

[OMX] Run an anti-slop cleanup/refactor/deslop workflow

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

[OMX] Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries. Use when a user says 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing', or needs grounded cross-file explanation before any changes are proposed.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

ask

Free

[OMX] Ask a local external advisor CLI (Claude or Gemini) and capture a reusable artifact

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview -> $ralplan -> $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) -> $code-review -> $ultraqa

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

[OMX] Stateful validator-gated research loop with native-hook persistence

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

[OMX] Durable professor-critic research workflow over Codex goal mode without reviving deprecated omx autoresearch

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

digris/openbroadcast.org9Updated Aug 31, 2026

See all skills by digris

Report a problem with this skill