researcher-hand-skill
- Repo stars 17,717
- Author updated Live
- Author repo openfang
- Domain
- Other
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 92 / 100 · audit passed
- Author / version / license
- @RightNow-AI · v1.0.0 · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- Python
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Shell exec
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: researcher-hand-skill
description: Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cro…
category: other
runtime: Python
---
# researcher-hand-skill output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cross-referencing, synthesis, and citation formats | Question Type | Strategy | Example | |--------------|----------|---------| | Factual | Find authoritative primary source | "What is the population of Tokyo?" | | Comparative | Multi-source balanced analysis | "R….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Research Methodology / Research Process (5 phases) / Question Types & Strategies” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cross-referencing, synthesis, and citation formats | Question Type | Strategy | Example | |--------------|----------|---------| | Factual | Find authoritative primary source | "What is the population of Tokyo?" | | Comparative | Multi-source balanced analysis | "R…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Research Methodology / Research Process (5 phases) / Question Types & Strategies” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, run shell commands, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Research Methodology / Research Process (5 phases) / Question Types & Strategies”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: researcher-hand-skill
description: Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cro…
category: other
source: RightNow-AI/openfang
---
# researcher-hand-skill
## When to use
- Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cross-referencing, synthe…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Research Methodology / Research Process (5 phases) / Question Types & Strategies” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "researcher-hand-skill" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Research Methodology / Research Process (5 phases) / Question Types & Strategies
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> Python | read files, run shell commands, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Deep Research Expert Knowledge
Research Methodology
Research Process (5 phases)
- Define: Clarify the question, identify what's known vs unknown, set scope
- Search: Systematic multi-strategy search across diverse sources
- Evaluate: Assess source quality, extract relevant data, note limitations
- Synthesize: Combine findings into coherent answer, resolve contradictions
- Verify: Cross-check critical claims, identify remaining uncertainties
Question Types & Strategies
| Question Type | Strategy | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Factual | Find authoritative primary source | "What is the population of Tokyo?" |
| Comparative | Multi-source balanced analysis | "React vs Vue for large apps?" |
| Causal | Evidence chain + counterfactuals | "Why did Theranos fail?" |
| Predictive | Trend analysis + expert consensus | "Will quantum computing replace classical?" |
| How-to | Step-by-step from practitioners | "How to set up a Kubernetes cluster?" |
| Survey | Comprehensive landscape mapping | "What are the options for vector databases?" |
| Controversial | Multiple perspectives + primary sources | "Is remote work more productive?" |
Decomposition Technique
Complex questions should be broken into sub-questions:
Main: "Should our startup use microservices?"
Sub-questions:
1. What are microservices? (definitional)
2. What are the benefits vs monolith? (comparative)
3. What team size/stage is appropriate? (contextual)
4. What are the operational costs? (factual)
5. What do similar startups use? (case studies)
6. What are the migration paths? (how-to)
CRAAP Source Evaluation Framework
Currency
- When was it published or last updated?
- Is the information still current for the topic?
- Are the links functional?
- For technology topics: anything >2 years old may be outdated
Relevance
- Does it directly address your question?
- Who is the intended audience?
- Is the level of detail appropriate?
- Would you cite this in your report?
Authority
- Who is the author? What are their credentials?
- What institution published this?
- Is there contact information?
- Does the URL domain indicate authority? (.gov, .edu, reputable org)
Accuracy
- Is the information supported by evidence?
- Has it been reviewed or refereed?
- Can you verify the claims from other sources?
- Are there factual errors, typos, or broken logic?
Purpose
- Why does this information exist?
- Is it informational, commercial, persuasive, or entertainment?
- Is the bias clear or hidden?
- Does the author/organization benefit from you believing this?
Scoring
A (Authoritative): Passes all 5 CRAAP criteria
B (Reliable): Passes 4/5, minor concern on one
C (Useful): Passes 3/5, use with caveats
D (Weak): Passes 2/5 or fewer
F (Unreliable): Fails most criteria, do not cite
Search Query Optimization
Query Construction Techniques
Exact phrase: "specific phrase" — use for names, quotes, error messages
Site-specific: site:domain.com query — search within a specific site
Exclude: query -unwanted_term — remove irrelevant results
File type: filetype:pdf query — find specific document types
Recency: query after:2024-01-01 — recent results only
OR operator: query (option1 OR option2) — broaden search
Wildcard: "how to * in python" — fill-in-the-blank
Multi-Strategy Search Pattern
For each research question, use at least 3 search strategies:
- Direct: The question as-is
- Authoritative:
site:gov OR site:edu OR site:org [topic] - Academic:
[topic] research paper [year]orsite:arxiv.org [topic] - Practical:
[topic] guideor[topic] tutorialor[topic] how to - Data:
[topic] statisticsor[topic] data [year] - Contrarian:
[topic] criticismor[topic] problemsor[topic] myths
Source Discovery by Domain
| Domain | Best Sources | Search Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | Official docs, GitHub, Stack Overflow, engineering blogs | [tech] documentation, site:github.com [tech] |
| Science | PubMed, arXiv, Nature, Science | site:arxiv.org [topic], [topic] systematic review |
| Business | SEC filings, industry reports, HBR | [company] 10-K, [industry] report [year] |
| Medicine | PubMed, WHO, CDC, Cochrane | site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [topic] |
| Legal | Court records, law reviews, statute databases | [case] ruling, [law] analysis |
| Statistics | Census, BLS, World Bank, OECD | site:data.worldbank.org [metric] |
| Current events | Reuters, AP, BBC, primary sources | [event] statement, [event] official |
Cross-Referencing Techniques
Verification Levels
Level 1: Single source (unverified)
→ Mark as "reported by [source]"
Level 2: Two independent sources agree (corroborated)
→ Mark as "confirmed by multiple sources"
Level 3: Primary source + secondary confirmation (verified)
→ Mark as "verified — primary source: [X]"
Level 4: Expert consensus (well-established)
→ Mark as "widely accepted" or "scientific consensus"
Contradiction Resolution
When sources disagree:
- Check which source is more authoritative (CRAAP scores)
- Check which is more recent (newer may have updated info)
- Check if they're measuring different things (apples vs oranges)
- Check for known biases or conflicts of interest
- Present both views with evidence for each
- State which view the evidence better supports (if clear)
- If genuinely uncertain, say so — don't force a conclusion
Synthesis Patterns
Narrative Synthesis
The evidence suggests [main finding].
[Source A] found that [finding 1], which is consistent with
[Source B]'s observation that [finding 2]. However, [Source C]
presents a contrasting view: [finding 3].
The weight of evidence favors [conclusion] because [reasoning].
A key limitation is [gap or uncertainty].
Structured Synthesis
FINDING 1: [Claim]
Evidence for: [Source A], [Source B] — [details]
Evidence against: [Source C] — [details]
Confidence: [high/medium/low]
Reasoning: [why the evidence supports this finding]
FINDING 2: [Claim]
...
Gap Analysis
After synthesis, explicitly note:
- What questions remain unanswered?
- What data would strengthen the conclusions?
- What are the limitations of the available sources?
- What follow-up research would be valuable?
Citation Formats
Inline URL
According to a 2024 study (https://example.com/study), the effect was significant.
Footnotes
According to a 2024 study[1], the effect was significant.
---
[1] https://example.com/study — "Title of Study" by Author, Published Date
Academic (APA)
In-text: (Smith, 2024)
Reference: Smith, J. (2024). Title of the article. *Journal Name*, 42(3), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.xxxx
For web sources (APA):
Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://url
Numbered References
According to recent research [1], the finding was confirmed by independent analysis [2].
## References
1. Author (Year). Title. URL
2. Author (Year). Title. URL
Output Templates
Brief Report
# [Question]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Sources**: N | **Confidence**: high/medium/low
## Answer
[2-3 paragraph direct answer]
## Key Evidence
- [Finding 1] — [source]
- [Finding 2] — [source]
- [Finding 3] — [source]
## Caveats
- [Limitation or uncertainty]
## Sources
1. [Source](url)
2. [Source](url)
Detailed Report
# Research Report: [Question]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Depth**: thorough | **Sources Consulted**: N
## Executive Summary
[1 paragraph synthesis]
## Background
[Context needed to understand the findings]
## Methodology
[How the research was conducted, what was searched, how sources were evaluated]
## Findings
### [Sub-question 1]
[Detailed findings with inline citations]
### [Sub-question 2]
[Detailed findings with inline citations]
## Analysis
[Synthesis across findings, patterns identified, implications]
## Contradictions & Open Questions
[Areas of disagreement, gaps in knowledge]
## Confidence Assessment
[Overall confidence level with reasoning]
## Sources
[Full bibliography in chosen citation format]
Cognitive Bias in Research
Be aware of these biases during research:
Confirmation bias: Favoring information that confirms your initial hypothesis
- Mitigation: Explicitly search for disconfirming evidence
Authority bias: Over-trusting sources from prestigious institutions
- Mitigation: Evaluate evidence quality, not just source prestige
Anchoring: Fixating on the first piece of information found
- Mitigation: Gather multiple sources before forming conclusions
Selection bias: Only finding sources that are easy to access
- Mitigation: Vary search strategies, check non-English sources
Recency bias: Over-weighting recent publications
- Mitigation: Include foundational/historical sources when relevant
Framing effect: Being influenced by how information is presented
- Mitigation: Look at raw data, not just interpretations
Domain-Specific Research Tips
Technology Research
- Always check the official documentation first
- Compare documentation version with the latest release
- Stack Overflow answers may be outdated — check the date
- GitHub issues/discussions often have the most current information
- Benchmarks without methodology descriptions are unreliable
Business Research
- SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q) are the most reliable public company data
- Press releases are marketing — verify claims independently
- Analyst reports may have conflicts of interest — check disclaimers
- Employee reviews (Glassdoor) provide internal perspective but are biased
Scientific Research
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are strongest evidence
- Single studies should not be treated as definitive
- Check if findings have been replicated
- Preprints have not been peer-reviewed — note this caveat
- p-values and effect sizes both matter — not just "statistically significant"
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review