跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

research-methodology

Best practices for systematic research, source evaluation, and evidence gathering

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md2.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Research Methodology Guide

Search Strategy

Phase 1: Broad Discovery

  • Start with general queries to understand the landscape
  • Use different phrasings for the same concept
  • Note key terminology, authors, and organizations

Phase 2: Focused Deep-Dive

  • Search for specific claims, statistics, or technical details
  • Target authoritative sources identified in Phase 1
  • Use exact phrases in quotes for precision

Phase 3: Verification

  • Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources
  • Search for counter-arguments or contradictions
  • Check publication dates for recency

Source Evaluation

Reliability Hierarchy

  1. Academic papers (peer-reviewed journals, arXiv preprints)
  2. Official documentation (government, organization, project docs)
  3. Reputable news (established outlets with editorial standards)
  4. Expert blog posts (known authors with credentials)
  5. Community forums (Stack Overflow, Reddit — use cautiously)

Evaluation Checklist

  • Authority: Who wrote it? What are their credentials?
  • Currency: When was it published? Is it still relevant?
  • Coverage: Does it address the topic comprehensively?
  • Accuracy: Can claims be verified elsewhere?
  • Objectivity: Is there obvious bias or commercial interest?

Note-Taking Best Practices

Structure Each Note File

# [Sub-topic Title]

## Key Findings
- Finding 1 [SOURCE: url, accessed YYYY-MM-DD] [HIGH confidence]
- Finding 2 [SOURCE: url, accessed YYYY-MM-DD] [MEDIUM confidence]

## Contradictions
- Source A says X, but Source B says Y

## Gaps
- Could not find reliable data on Z

Confidence Levels

  • [HIGH]: Multiple authoritative sources agree
  • [MEDIUM]: Single authoritative source, or multiple less-reliable sources agree
  • [LOW]: Single non-authoritative source, or conflicting information

Common Pitfalls

  • Don't rely on a single source for important claims
  • Check if "recent" articles cite outdated data
  • Be wary of sources that don't cite their own sources
  • Distinguish between correlation and causation
  • Note when sample sizes are small or studies are preliminary

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Building, compiling, and resolving dependency issues across languages

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

Systematic code review for bugs, security, style, and performance

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

Review Python code for quality, security, and best practices

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

Comprehensive data analysis skill for CSV files using Python and pandas

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

Working with diverse data formats: binary, text, structured, and custom

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

Best practices for creating research diagrams with Excalidraw MCP tools

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents11052026年10月21日 更新

查看 vstorm-co 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题