Skip to content
Back to skills

Vibe Research Before Design

ASecurity

Researches real projects, papers, and documented failures before proposing a new feature, architecture, or technology choice. Use for design decisions with multiple valid approaches, not for implementing an existing spec or fixing a known bug.

  • 85 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 25, 2026
ai-agentsgo

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 25, 2026

npx -y skills add ash1794/vibe-engineering --skill vibe-research-before-design --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Vibe Research Before Design?

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

Security grade badge for Vibe Research Before Design
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/ash1794-vibe-research-before-design/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ash1794-vibe-research-before-design)

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: vibe-research-before-design
description: Researches real projects, papers, and documented failures before proposing a new feature, architecture, or technology choice. Use for design decisions with multiple valid approaches, not for implementing an existing spec or fixing a known bug.
user-invocable: true
---

# vibe-research-before-design

Other people's documented failures count as observed failure. Before proposing a design, find out how others solved the same problem and where it broke for them.

## When to Use This Skill

- Designing a new feature, subsystem, or architecture
- Choosing between technologies, frameworks, or patterns
- Making a decision with long-term consequences that is expensive to reverse
- The user asks "how should we build X?"
- You're about to say "I recommend..." for a design choice

## When NOT to Use This Skill

- Implementing an already-designed spec (the research was done at design time)
- Fixing a bug with a known approach
- Routine or mechanical changes with one obvious correct solution
- The user has already chosen the technology and wants implementation
- The decision was already researched and recorded (check `vibe-decision-journal` first)

## Steps

1. **Frame the question** — What exactly is being decided? What are the hard constraints (scale, latency, cost, team skills, existing stack)?

2. **Decompose** into sub-problems that can be researched independently.

3. **Research each sub-problem** using whatever web search or research tool the harness provides. Run sub-problems in parallel (subagents) when the harness supports it. For each, find:

   | Requirement | Minimum |
   |-------------|---------|
   | Real projects or production systems | 2+, with a link |
   | Paper, post-mortem, or engineering write-up | 1+, with a link and year |
   | Mechanism | How it actually works, not marketing copy |
   | Known failures | What went wrong for others, and under what conditions |
   | Fit | How it maps to *our* constraints, specifically |

4. **Verify before citing** — Every source must be something you actually opened in this session. Don't quote adoption numbers (stars, downloads, users) from memory; either read them from the source or leave them out. If search is unavailable, say so and label the output "from prior knowledge, unverified."

5. **Synthesize** — Compare the options side by side, with the imported failures up front.

6. **Recommend** — Base the recommendation on the evidence and state your confidence. Name the condition that would change your mind.

7. **Record** — Log the decision and the rejected alternatives with `vibe-decision-journal`.

## Red Flags

| Thought | Reality |
|---------|---------|
| "I already know the best approach" | You know one approach. Research finds the others. |
| "This is too niche for research" | If someone built it, someone documented where it failed. |
| "Research will slow us down" | A rewrite is slower. |
| "Everyone uses X" | Popularity is not fitness for your constraints. |
| "I'll cite what I remember" | Unverified citations are the most common way research output goes wrong. |

## Output Format

### Research Summary
- **Decision**: [what we're deciding]
- **Constraints**: [key constraints]
- **Options evaluated**: X

### Comparison
| Criteria | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Mechanism | | | |
| Known failures | | | |
| Fit with constraints | | | |

### Recommendation
[Evidence-based recommendation, confidence level, and what would change it]

### Sources
[Links actually opened, one line each on what they showed]

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.