# Research > Research and document - Skill: `chrisadkin8/research` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 5 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add chrisadkin8/research` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/chrisadkin8/research/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: ChrisAdkin8 (https://skillmd.com/u/chrisadkin8) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/chrisadkin8/research --- # Research and document Request: $ARGUMENTS The work happens in background agents so the user can keep working: 1. **Frame** (here, under a minute): settle the question, depth and output path. 2. **Research**: the `researcher` agent writes the note and self-checks it with `check-note.py`. 3. **Verify**: the `research-verifier` agent, which has not seen the research, checks the claims the recommendation rests on against their sources. 4. **Finish** (here): apply the verifier's fixes, record what was checked in the note, re-verify once if the conclusion changed, set the status, link the idea, commit. At `ideas` depth, also merge the new attention data into the shared evidence note and file the top three ideas as idea notes. The research rules live in `~/.claude/agents/researcher.md` and the checking rules in `~/.claude/agents/research-verifier.md`. Don't restate them in briefs; edit those files to change them. ## Modes - `/research `: full depth, unless the question is narrow and factual (a limit, a version, a price, how one feature behaves) with no decision to make; then quick. If it asks for ideas, candidates, what to build or write, or a ranking of things to do, use ideas depth, and say in the framing line that you chose it so the user can redirect. - `/research quick `: quick depth. Bottom line, a one-line The question, Findings and Sources, 600 words at most. - `/research ideas `: ideas depth. A pool of at least 20 candidates across six lenses, narrowed to a ranked shortlist of 5–7 with a rubric; the verifier hunts for prior art on the top two; the top three are filed as idea notes. 2,400 words at most, with the pool after Sources and outside the budget. - `/research finish ["claim" ...]`: skip to verification. Use it when a session ended before a note was verified, after editing a note by hand, or when `/spec` flags a borrowed claim as unverified (pass that claim's wording). ## 1. Frame (in the conversation) 1. **Resolve the question.** - A path to a note in `~/notes/ideas/`: read it. The idea is the subject; research it as a whole. - Empty request: use the question just discussed. If there is none, ask for it in one line and stop. - If the question is ambiguous in a way that would change the research (which cloud, what scale, which constraint matters most), ask **one** question with AskUserQuestion. Otherwise don't ask; list your assumptions in the brief. 2. **Check for existing work**: `grep -ril '' ~/notes/research ~/notes/ideas`. If a research note already covers it, ask whether to update that note or write a new one. 3. **Ranking and lenses** (ideas depth only). Rank by "likely mindshare" unless the request names another criterion. Mindshare means traffic and engagement: stars, shares, Hacker News, Reddit and LinkedIn traction, talks, demos people pass around. Novelty counts for more than usefulness to clients. The lenses are finding, tool, dataset, game, lab and essay; drop only the ones the question plainly rules out. 4. **Repo context**: if the working directory is inside a git repo under `~/code`, note its path. The researcher reads the relevant files itself; don't read them now. 5. **Output path**: `~/notes/research/YYYY-MM-DD-short-slug.md` (today's date, 3–6 word lowercase hyphenated slug), or the existing note if updating. 6. **Launch.** First run `git -C ~/notes status --porcelain` and keep its output, so that section 2 can tell the researcher's changes from ones that were already there. Then launch the Agent tool with `subagent_type: researcher` and this brief, filled in. Leave out the `Rank by` and `Lenses` lines except at ideas depth. ``` Depth: Question: Rank by: Lenses: A good answer must cover: <2–4 success criteria> Assumptions: Output file: () Idea note: Repo in scope: Related notes: Today's date: ``` 7. Tell the user in one or two lines: the restated question, the depth (so they can redirect it), the ranking criterion at ideas depth, and where the note will land. End your turn. ## 2. When the researcher finishes 1. Run `~/.claude/skills/research/scripts/check-note.py --headroom `. `--headroom` applies the researcher's lower budget, which leaves room for the verifier's fixes. If the agent failed, or the note is missing or has no Sources, tell the user what happened and stop; don't commit. Then run `git -C ~/notes status --porcelain`: the researcher may write only its note, so any other changed file under `~/notes/research` that wasn't in the output kept at launch is a red flag. So is any change to `~/notes/projects/mindshare/attention-evidence.md` or `~/notes/ideas/`: only the Finish step edits those, never the researcher. Don't commit such a file; show the user the diff and say which file. 2. If the result is FAIL, send the FAIL lines to the researcher with SendMessage (load it with ToolSearch if needed) and ask it to fix them and re-run the check. Allow two rounds; if it still fails, carry on to verification and report the remaining failures at the end. 3. Launch the Agent tool with `subagent_type: research-verifier` and the brief `Note: . Today's date: .`, adding `Depth: ideas: run the prior-art hunt first.` at ideas depth. Tell the user in one line that the note is written and being verified. End your turn. In `finish` mode, start here: 1. Run the check without `--headroom` (the note already exists, so its hard limit applies). Fix any FAIL lines yourself. On a length FAIL, cut unverified points only, as step 4 of section 3 says; a WARN for being up to 10 % over after verification is left as is. Leave alone Verification rows the check says no longer match the note: those are claims edited since they were checked, so leave them for the verifier. 2. Collect the claims to name in the brief: - any claims passed as arguments; - claims the check reports as no longer matching; - claims changed since the last verification: find the last `research:` commit that touched the note (`git -C ~/notes log --format='%h %s' -- `), then `git -C ~/notes diff -- ` shows every edit since, committed or not. If the note has never been committed (a session ended before its first verification), skip this: the verifier checks it as a new note. 3. Launch the verifier with the brief above, plus `Also check: ""; ""` if there are any. A note verified before the `## Verification` section existed gets one from this run. ## 3. When the verifier finishes At ideas depth, first check the reply has a `Prior art:` block listing the queries it ran for #1 and #2, and Novelty rows for both in its table. At full depth, if the Bottom line or Recommendation rests on a claim of absence, check the reply has a `Prior art:` block for that claim and a row for it. If either is missing, send it back once with SendMessage: "Your reply has no Prior-art hunt. Run it as your instructions describe, every query against every venue, and reply again in full." If the second reply still lacks it, carry on and say in the report that novelty wasn't independently checked. 1. **Apply its fixes** to the note: - WRONG: replace the figure or statement with the corrected one and update or add the source. - MISCITED: cite the source the verifier found (add it to Sources). - UNSUPPORTED or UNREACHABLE: mark the claim *(unverified)*, or soften it to what the sources do say. - Other problems: fix dangling citations. Add missed evidence (prior art, a feature that already exists) to Findings or Counter-evidence with its source, and adjust the wording it contradicts. - Novelty rows and the `Prior art:` block (ideas depth): add every `same` and `overlaps` hit to Findings → Prior art with its source. For a WRONG Novelty row, narrow that Novelty cell, and the Bottom line and Recommendation if they repeat it, to what is still new. Cut or narrow any pool line a hit makes redundant. 2. **Record the verification.** Add a `## Verification` section after Sources, so it doesn't count toward the word budget. This is the only record of which claims were checked; `/spec` and its verifier read it to tell checked claims from unchecked ones. ``` ## Verification Checked on by research-verifier: of claims confirmed. | Claim | Cited | Verdict | Resolution | |---|---|---|---| | | [4] | CONFIRMED | | | <…> | [7] | WRONG | corrected to , cited [12] | | <…> | [9] | UNREACHABLE | marked *(unverified)*: | ``` Record every row the verifier returned, corrected ones included; don't drop any. `` and `` are the table's own counts: its CONFIRMED rows and all its rows. `check-note.py` compares them, so put round details, or the verifier's own count where it differs, after them, e.g. "16 of 21 claims confirmed across both rounds' rows. Round 1: 15 of 18 …". Every row that isn't CONFIRMED needs a Resolution: corrected, re-cited, or marked *(unverified)*, which the check confirms is in the text. If the section already exists (from `finish` mode or round 2), update the rows for claims checked again, add new ones, delete rows for claims the note no longer makes, and update the date line. A row's Claim must quote the note's current wording, or the check fails it as stale. 3. **If the conclusion changed**, the rewritten text is the least-checked part of the note, so it gets one more check: - This applies on `Bottom line holds: no`, or when missed evidence weakens the recommendation. At ideas depth that includes a `same` prior-art hit on the #1 idea: re-rank the Shortlist, and if a different idea moves to #1, round 2 hunts prior art for it. Revise the Bottom line and Recommendation to match the evidence, set `status: draft`, and commit with the message `research: (conclusion revised, re-verifying)`. - Launch `research-verifier` again with `Note: <absolute path>. Today's date: <YYYY-MM-DD>. Round 2.` Tell the user in one line that the conclusion changed and is being re-checked. End your turn. - When round 2 returns, apply its fixes and update Verification as above, then carry on from step 4. If round 2 also says `Bottom line holds: no`, leave the note as draft and say so in the report, with one exception. - **Round 3, for one narrowed absence claim.** If round 2's `no` rests only on an absence claim ("no tool does X", "nothing found") that it narrowed again, apply its narrowing and launch `research-verifier` with `Note: <absolute path>. Today's date: <YYYY-MM-DD>. Round 3: check only "<the narrowed sentence>".` It replies with one row and the usual closing lines. If the row is CONFIRMED and it says `Bottom line holds: yes`, carry on from step 4. If not, leave the note as draft and name the sentence in the report. There is no round 4. 4. Re-run `check-note.py`. Once the note has a Verification table, the check allows up to 10 % over the limit with a WARN; leave that as is. Cut only on a FAIL, and then cut whole unverified points from Findings or Options. Never cut a sentence a Verification row quotes, a Project health row, the Bottom line, Recommendation or Counter-evidence, nor Shortlist rows or cells. 5. **Status**: set `status: final` when all of these hold: - the check passes; - the latest verifier says `Bottom line holds: yes`; - every Verification row is CONFIRMED or resolved: corrected, re-cited, or marked *(unverified)* in the note's text. A claim that can't be verified (a JavaScript-only pricing page, a login wall) doesn't hold a note in draft forever, as long as it's visibly marked and the Bottom line doesn't stand on it. Otherwise set `status: draft` (in `finish` mode the note may have been `final`); the report says why. 6. **Link the idea**, if there was one: in the idea note, set `status: exploring` and add the research note's path to `related`. If the Bottom line recommends against the idea, don't go further: say so in the report and suggest `parked` or `dropped`. That call is the user's. 7. **Merge the attention evidence** (ideas depth). Append each row of the note's Findings → Attention evidence table to the table in `~/notes/projects/mindshare/attention-evidence.md`, unless a row with the same Source is already there. Use corrected figures where the verifier corrected one. If the new rows change a reading in its Patterns list, or support a new one, update that line and its date. This is the only step that edits the evidence note. 8. **File the top three as idea notes** (ideas depth). For Shortlist rows #1, #2 and #3 only; the rest of the Shortlist and the Candidate pool stay in the research note as the record: - Look for an existing note by title: `grep -il '^title:.*<idea name>' ~/notes/ideas/*.md`. Match titles only: a name can appear in another idea's text, including one filed moments earlier in this step. If there is one, add the research note's path to its `related` and leave the rest alone. If the run started from an idea note and it is the #1 idea, step 6 has already linked it. - Otherwise create `~/notes/ideas/YYYY-MM-DD-short-slug.md` from `~/notes/templates/idea.md`. Set `title` to the idea's name and a few words on what it is, `created` to today, `tags` from the research note, and `related` to the research note's `~` path, plus the repo if one was in scope. Write each section in whole sentences, not pasted cells, drawing on the Shortlist row: The idea from Idea and Share hook; Why from Format evidence; How it might work from Demo and Effort; Open questions from Novelty, as what the prior art leaves open; Risks from Why it flops. Next step is the research note's Next step for the #1 idea and "Not yet planned." for the others. Citation numbers mean nothing outside the research note, so replace each with a markdown link to that source's URL; for a source with no URL (a command, a search, a note), link the research note instead. - Set `status: exploring` for the #1 idea and `parked` for #2 and #3. Under the title of each parked note, add a line: "Ranked #n in [<research note title>](../research/<file>); parked because <Why it flops, in a few words>." If the research note ends as draft because its Bottom line doesn't hold, park all of them and say why in that line. - Add every idea note's `~` path to the research note's `related`, then re-run `check-note.py`: each `related` entry must exist. 9. **Commit** only the files you created or changed in `~/notes` (the research note, the idea note if edited and, at ideas depth, the evidence note and the idea notes filed in step 8): `git -C ~/notes add <files>`, then `git -C ~/notes commit` with message `research: <title>`, following this session's commit attribution rules. Don't push. 10. **Report** in five lines or fewer (six at ideas depth): - the note path; - the bottom line in two sentences; - verification, e.g. `9 of 10 claims confirmed, 1 corrected, 1 left unverified`, and whether the conclusion changed; - the status and, if draft, why; - the commit hash; - at ideas depth: the pool size and lenses covered, the prior-art verdict on #1 and #2, and the idea notes filed. If the recommendation is to change a repo, add a line: the next step is `/spec <note>`, run from that repo (see `~/.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.md`). If the Recommendation is conditional or the options are close, suggest recording the choice in `~/notes/decisions/` first.