Skip to content
Back to skills

Best Practice Research

ASecurity

Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first, with a cited recommendation and explicit handoff

  • 8 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added October 13, 2026
ai-agentsgoapidocumentation

Works with

  • terminal
  • api
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned October 13, 2026

npx -y skills add 1225Sakura/oh-my-deepseekharness --skill best-practice-research --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Best Practice Research?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Best Practice Research
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/1225sakura-best-practice-research/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/1225sakura-best-practice-research)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: best-practice-research
description: Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first, with a cited recommendation and explicit handoff
when-to-use: A task depends on current external best practices, version-aware guidance, standards, official recommendations, or upstream behavior for an already chosen technology. Not for fully repo-local answers (use explore/research) or dependency adoption/comparison decisions.
---

# Best-Practice Research

Use this skill when a task depends on current external best practices, version-aware guidance, standards, official recommendations, or upstream behavior. This is a workflow wrapper: it routes evidence gathering and synthesis; it is not a new research authority and it does not replace the general `research` lane.

## Purpose

Produce a cited, reusable best-practice answer or handoff that separates current external evidence from repo-local facts and dependency-selection decisions. For pre-planning investigation, this is the ordinary first research wrapper: gather official/upstream evidence, then hand it to the planning lane (`ralplan` / `plan`) or the caller as planning input. Do not present this skill as a final architecture component or as a validator-gated research loop.

## Terminal By Default

This skill is terminal and read-only by default. It gathers evidence and produces a cited recommendation with a handoff, then stops. Do not write or edit files, create or amend commits, run mutating commands, or otherwise modify repository state under this skill — even when the question has clear implementation implications. When implementation is warranted, stop and hand off rather than continuing: name `ralplan` / `plan` for planning and `autopilot` / `team` / `omd-agent-executor` for execution, and resume only after the user explicitly switches to that workflow.

## Activate When

- The user asks for best practices, recommended approach, current guidance, official recommendations, standards, or version-aware external behavior.
- `ralplan`, `deep-interview`, `team`, or another workflow needs current external evidence before planning or execution can be correct.
- The task involves an already chosen technology and needs authoritative usage guidance, migration notes, API behavior, lifecycle rules, or current safety guidance.

## Do Not Activate When

- The answer is fully repo-local; use `omd-agent-explore` / `research` for codebase facts.
- The main question is whether to adopt, replace, upgrade, or compare dependencies — that is the `omd-agent-dependency-expert` lane (candidate comparison, vulnerabilities, licensing, migration paths); route there directly.
- The user only needs implementation against already-grounded requirements; execute directly, or use `team` when coordinated parallel work is warranted.
- The task can be answered from stable local project conventions without current external lookup.

## Specialist Routing

1. Use `omd-agent-explore` (via `subagent`, or `omd_delegate` for hard routing) first for brownfield facts: current code usage, local constraints, versions, config, and integration points.
2. Use `omd-agent-document-specialist` for official/upstream docs, release notes, standards, migration guides, source-backed examples, and current best-practice evidence for an already chosen technology. For direct lookups, `web_search` / `read_page` in this lane work too.
3. Route adoption/upgrade/replacement/comparison decisions to `omd-agent-dependency-expert` (the dedicated lane); this skill only supplies the source-quality rules and its cited findings as input — it does not make the selection verdict.
4. Return to the caller with explicit evidence, uncertainty, and any implementation handoff constraints.

## Source-Quality Rules

- Prefer official documentation, upstream source, release notes, changelogs, standards, and maintainer guidance.
- Include source URLs for material claims.
- State date/version context for current best-practice claims.
- Label third-party summaries as supplemental; do not use them before official/upstream sources.
- Flag stale, conflicting, undocumented, or version-mismatched evidence.
- Do not over-fetch: gather the smallest evidence set that can support the decision.

## Workflow

1. Classify the question: conceptual best practice, implementation guidance, migration/version guidance, standards/compliance guidance, or mixed local + external guidance.
2. Gather repo-local facts with `omd-agent-explore` / `grep` / `glob` / `read` when local usage or constraints affect the answer.
3. Gather external evidence with `omd-agent-document-specialist` / `web_search` / `read_page` when current or version-aware practice affects correctness.
4. Synthesize a concise answer with source quality, version/date context, caveats, and an implementation or planning handoff.
5. Stop when the answer is grounded enough for the caller; otherwise report the exact blocker or specialist handoff needed.

## Output Contract

```md
## Best-Practice Research: <question>

### Direct Recommendation
<actionable guidance or decision support>

### Evidence Used
- Official/upstream: <source URL> — <what it establishes>
- Supplemental, if any: <source URL> — <why it is secondary>

### Version / Date Context
<versions, dates, release channels, or unknowns>

### Repo-Local Context
<facts from explore, or "not needed">

### Boundaries / Non-goals
<what this research does not decide>

### Handoff
<planning/execution/test implications; name the next workflow — `ralplan` / `plan` for planning, `autopilot` / `team` / `omd-agent-executor` for execution — and note that this skill stops here unless the user explicitly switches workflows>
```

## Stop Rules

- Stop after a source-backed recommendation is reusable by the caller.
- Stop and route upward if the task becomes dependency comparison, broad architecture, or implementation.
- Do not continue researching when remaining work would only polish wording rather than change the recommendation.
- This skill never implements. After delivering the recommendation and handoff, stop; do not modify repo files or repo state. Resume only when the user explicitly switches to a planning or implementation workflow named in the handoff.

## State Contract (状态契约)

This skill **holds no mode state** and creates nothing under `.omd/state/`. The cited answer is delivered as the final message; durable best-practice facts worth keeping go to `mcp__omd-state__notepad_write_priority` / `notepad_write_working`.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md6.4 KB
  • SKILL.zh.md5.5 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.