본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

deep-research

Multi-step autonomous research methodology for deep investigation tasks with structured synthesis

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(11)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB
  • commands/deep-research.md288 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs235 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs232 B
  • references/.gitkeep37 B
  • references/research-requirements.md222 B
  • rules/deep-research.md100 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json263 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json624 B
  • scripts/main.cjs489 B
  • templates/implementation-template.md163 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Deep Research

<identity> Deep Research Skill — Multi-step autonomous research methodology for structured, evidence-based investigation and synthesis. </identity> <capabilities> - 5-phase autonomous research workflow (Scope → Search → Synthesis → Validation → Report) - Multi-source evidence gathering with cross-validation - Structured output with citations and confidence ratings - Gap detection and iterative depth expansion - Actionable recommendation generation </capabilities>

When to Use

  • Task requires investigation across multiple sources before drawing a conclusion
  • Evidence-based answers needed, not pattern-matched guesses
  • Question spans multiple domains and needs synthesis
  • Accuracy of findings is critical to downstream decisions

Trigger phrases: "research", "investigate", "deep dive", "find evidence for", "comprehensive analysis of"

Iron Law

Never synthesize without reading sources. Every claim in the final report must trace to a source retrieved during Phase 2.

5-Phase Process

Phase 1: Scope — Restate as one research question. Define 3–5 sub-questions, success criteria, constraints, and non-goals. Cannot proceed without a written scope block.

Phase 2: Multi-Source Search — Run 3+ WebSearch queries. WebFetch each source URL. pnpm search:code for prior-art. Maintain evidence log: URL, claim, confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), sub-question. Each sub-question needs ≥2 independent sources.

Phase 3: Synthesis — Group evidence by sub-question. CONSENSUS (2+ sources) → HIGH; CONFLICT → LOW, flag for user. Build synthesis matrix. Label unsupported claims [UNVERIFIED].

Phase 4: Validation

  • Source freshness — appropriate time period?
  • Contradiction check — resolve or flag CONFLICT items.
  • Assumption audit — 3 assumptions stated explicitly?
  • Scope alignment — each finding maps to a Phase 1 sub-question?
  • Confidence calibration — downgrade single-source HIGH ratings.

Phase 5: Report — Save to .claude/context/reports/backend/<topic>-research-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md with sections: Executive Summary, Findings (finding + confidence + evidence per sub-question), Conflicts, Recommended Actions, Knowledge Gaps, Sources.

Tool Usage

ToolPhasePurpose
WebSearch2ABroad source discovery
WebFetch2BExtract content from URLs
Read / Grep2CSearch codebase for prior art
Write5Save report

Output Locations

  • Reports: .claude/context/reports/backend/<topic>-research-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md
  • Evidence logs (temp): .claude/context/tmp/research-evidence-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md

Search Protocol

  1. pnpm search:code "<query>" — primary intent-based search
  2. Skill({ skill: 'ripgrep' }) — exact keyword/regex matches
  3. WebSearch / WebFetch — external sources
  4. Grep — fallback for single-file targeted checks

Iron Laws

  1. NEVER proceed to Phase 3 without ≥2 sources per sub-question.
  2. ALWAYS save evidence log to tmp/ before Phase 3 — context resets lose unsaved evidence.
  3. ALWAYS label confidence explicitly — never present LOW-confidence as conclusion.
  4. NEVER paper over gaps — unknown answers must be flagged, not omitted.
  5. ALWAYS verify report file exists before marking task complete.

Anti-Patterns

  • No scope block before searching → unfocused evidence, unsynthesizable
  • Single source per claim → cross-validate with ≥2 independent sources
  • Synthesizing while searching → introduces confirmation bias; complete Phase 2 first
  • Omitting CONFLICT evidence → flag all conflicts explicitly in report

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

Check for: prior reports on same topic (avoid duplicates), unreliable sources in issues.md, relevant ADRs in decisions.md.

After completing:

  • New research pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
  • Unreliable source identified -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
  • Methodology decision -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Save evidence log and partial findings before Phase 3.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

oimiragieo의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고