Results for “research-provenance”

Research a topic and grow your knowledge graph. Uses Exa deep researcher, web search, or basic search to investigate topics, files results with full provenance, and chains to processing pipeline. Triggers on "/learn", "/learn [topic]", "research this", "find out about".

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.

research-synthesis

Runs evidence-first current-state research, comparing options and enriching people or companies, then reports with explicit evidence boundaries.

Generate academic research proposals for PhD applications. Use when user asks to "write a research proposal", "create PhD proposal", "generate research plan", "撰写研究计划", "写博士申请", "doctoral proposal", or mentions specific research topics for PhD application. Supports STEM, humanities, and social sciences with field-specific adaptations. Follows Nature Reviews-style academic writing conventions. Supports both English and Chinese output based on user preference.

Route research prompts to evidence, retrieval, scraping, data, market, or scientific research skills. Use when prompts mention deep research, current facts, citations, Exa, iterative retrieval, search-first, scraping, data pipelines, PubMed, USPTO, gget, literature review, or scholar evaluation.

针对明确问题查阅高可信一手来源，并将带逐项引用的结论保存为仓库内单个 Markdown 调研文件。用于用户要求调研技术主题、核实文档、API、规范或源码事实，或希望把资料阅读工作委托给后台 agent；不用于完整代码库架构调研、无需落盘的简短事实回答或代码评审。

Orchestrates evidence-based research across local PDFs, scholarly search, citation-context tools, web sources, and code repositories to produce traceable syntheses with counterevidence audits.

Produces decision-oriented market research, competitive analysis, investor due diligence, and industry intelligence with source attribution.

Runs evidence-first research workflows, choosing the lightest useful path from search to deep synthesis, and labels facts, inference, and recommendations.

Run evidence-first research, web/source search, Exa search, iterative retrieval, and research-before-coding workflows. Use when prompts ask for current facts, source-backed recommendations, market or company research, code/library discovery, query refinement, cited synthesis, deep research, or the old deep-research/research-ops/exa-search/iterative-retrieval/search-first skills.

NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

Runs evidence-first research workflows by combining search, synthesis, and recommendation skills for current facts, comparisons, or enrichment.

Routes UI evidence, comparisons, critiques, references, best practices, and design research to one research workflow.

Plan and synthesize product/user research with method rigor: select the right method for the goal, compute defensible sample sizes with confidence labels, and cluster coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes.

Turn a refined research proposal or method idea into a detailed, claim-driven experiment roadmap. Use when the user asks for a detailed experiment plan, ablation matrix, evaluation protocol, run order, compute budget, or paper-ready validation that supports the core problem, novelty, simplicity, and any LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL-based contribution.

Philosophy of science methodology examining how research programs evolve through proofs and refutations

Verify research idea novelty against recent literature. Use when user says "查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过", "check novelty", or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing.

Select the right Proof of Life (PoL) probe type based on hypothesis, risk, and resources to match validation method to the real learning goal.

Turn a refined research proposal or method idea into a detailed, claim-driven experiment roadmap. Use after `research-refine`, or when the user asks for a detailed experiment plan, ablation matrix, evaluation protocol, run order, compute budget, or paper-ready validation that supports the core problem, novelty, simplicity, and any LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL-based contribution.

用于国自然、国社科等基金申请、开题报告、博士后/人才计划、研究计划书等学术提案的撰写、审查和优化；当用户需要基于已有研究成果形成立项书、区分事实与 AI 建议、检查任务书一致性、补强论证逻辑时使用。

Define a lightweight, disposable Proof of Life probe to test a risky hypothesis cheaply and surface harsh truths before building real product.

Stateful validator-gated research loop with native-hook persistence

Researches and recommends programming technologies, libraries, and architectural approaches with verified references from official documentation.

Higher-precedence research helper with risky setup.

研究优先于编码的工作流程。在编写自定义代码之前，搜索现有的工具、库和模式。调用研究员代理。

根据研究者提供的**研究计划书（Research Proposal）**执行基于**外国（美国/欧盟/英国/日本/跨国）制度环境**的公司金融类实证研究全流程。**启动后第一件事：根据计划书的主题、识别策略、贡献边际与样本范围，从外国 CF 顶刊池（AER/QJE/JPE/JF/JFE/RFS/JFQA/JAR/JAE/MS/JCF/JBF 等 25+ 期刊）中推荐 5 本最匹配的目标期刊（[J1]–[J5]），等待研究者明确选定一本；该期刊决定 main.tex 的 bibliographystyle、Section 骨架、Introduction 风格与表注规范**。然后用 Python 完成数据清洗、描述性统计、基准回归、内生性检验（IV/2SLS、DML）、平行趋势、异质性、机制、稳健性检验与图表绘制。LaTeX 表格和图像严格遵循 template/ 示例格式，研究逻辑与排版严格遵循 rule/ 下的《通用实证研究逻辑与规范总结》与《回归表写作规范总结》。数据集与政策集从 asset/ 中按计划书中的关键词检索（WRDS / NBER/Fed releases / FRED / 全球宏观库）。**当计划书预期的实证结果无法实现时（系数不显著、平行趋势不通过、IV 弱工具、机制不成立等），skill 自动切换备选方案直至完成研究项目**。最终交付物：Python 代码 + LaTeX 表格 + 图像（.pdf/.png）。触发条件：研究者提交研究计划书（含 X→Y 假设、识别策略、样本、政策冲击等）。

Resolves legacy references to the pr-review-expert capability by routing to the current runtime agent or skill.

Run a trademark clearance search before adopting a new brand name, mark, or logo and risk-rate it clear, caution, or high-risk with a proceed/modify/abandon recommendation.

Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.

Verify research idea novelty against recent literature. Use when user says "查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过", "check novelty", or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper, covering real subject systems, fair runnable tool baselines, task-matched effectiveness metrics, ablations that isolate a learned component, oracle and correctness validation, contamination-aware LLM handling, and provenance for mining.

Generate Product Requirements Documents through structured conversation for any project. Use when starting a new feature, documenting requirements, creating specs before implementation, or needing clarity on scope and success criteria.

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality by assessing experimental design, identifying biases and confounders, and applying evidence grading frameworks like GRADE and Cochrane Risk of Bias.