Research a topic across multiple sources, synthesise what's actually being said, then optionally file the result as a wiki source page. Use when the user says 'research [topic]', 'what's new with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'look up recent discussion on [topic]', or wants fresh external research captured into the wiki. Presents takeaways first, then asks whether to ingest — as a source-only page or a full INGEST with entity pages.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Ulef1005/benchbook --skill research --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Research?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ulef1005-research)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: research
description: "Research a topic across multiple sources, synthesise what's actually being said, then optionally file the result as a wiki source page. Use when the user says 'research [topic]', 'what's new with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'look up recent discussion on [topic]', or wants fresh external research captured into the wiki. Presents takeaways first, then asks whether to ingest — as a source-only page or a full INGEST with entity pages."
license: MIT
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
category: knowledge
---
# Research
## Purpose
The pattern: **acquire → synthesise → offer to file.**
That last step is the one that matters. Research that stays in the chat window is research
you'll redo in four months, pay for again, and possibly reach a different conclusion from for
no good reason.
---
## Step 1 — Sharpen the question
Restate what you're about to search for, and confirm it if it's ambiguous.
"Research Kubernetes" is not a question. "Which lightweight Kubernetes distribution suits a
three-node ARM cluster" is. The difference decides whether the output is a wall of general
background or something you can act on.
Ask what the research is *for* — a purchase, a build decision, general orientation. That
changes what counts as a good answer.
---
## Step 2 — Gather from several angles
Use whatever search and fetch capability your tool has. **Vary the angle rather than repeating
the same query** — different sources surface different things:
| Angle | Finds |
|---|---|
| General web / docs | The official story, current versions, stated capabilities |
| Discussion forums | What breaks in practice, and what people migrated away from |
| Code hosting | Whether it's actually maintained — last commit, open issue count, release cadence |
| Comparisons and reviews | The alternatives you didn't know to consider |
**Check recency explicitly.** A confident three-year-old blog post ranks well and may describe
software that no longer works this way. Note the date on anything load-bearing.
**Note what you couldn't find.** A gap is a finding — "no one seems to have written about
running this on ARM" is genuinely useful and stops the reader assuming you checked.
---
## Step 3 — Synthesise, and separate fact from consensus
Present:
1. **What the thing is** — brief, only if the user needs orienting
2. **Key takeaways** — 5–10, each concrete
3. **Where sources disagree** — explicitly. This is the most valuable part
4. **Maintenance and recency signals** — is this alive?
5. **What you couldn't establish**
Distinguish clearly between **what's documented**, **what people report**, and **what you're
inferring**. Those are three different confidence levels and flattening them produces
confident-sounding mush.
Cite as you go. Every load-bearing claim should be traceable to where it came from.
---
## Step 4 — Offer to file it
Ask, with a recommendation:
| Option | When |
|---|---|
| **Source page only** | Orientation research, no clear entities yet |
| **Full INGEST** | The research identified specific tools/products worth their own entity pages |
| **Don't file** | Genuinely throwaway — a quick factual lookup |
Recommend filing whenever the research informed a decision. **The reasoning behind a decision
is the thing nothing else captures**, and in three months you won't remember why the popular
option lost.
---
## Step 5 — If filing, hand off to INGEST
Follow `agents-core.md § 3 INGEST` — domain is almost always `knowledge`:
- Source page at `wiki/sources/<slug>.md` — `## Summary` → `## Key Takeaways` → `## Sources`
- `source_url:` is the primary source; list the rest under `## Sources`
- Propose entity pages for anything that recurs across sources — approval required per entity
- A **reference page only if 4+ options were genuinely compared**, and only with approval
- Two-way link entities and the source
- Update `wiki/index-knowledge.md` and append one `ingest` line to the log
**Never fabricate a source.** If a claim came from your own knowledge rather than something you
fetched, say so on the page — `agents-core.md` requires disclosing non-wiki sources, and that
applies to research just as much as to answering a question.
---
## Note on tooling
This skill is deliberately vague about *which* search tools to use — it works with whatever
your agent has. If you have specialised research tooling, name it here in your own copy; the
procedure above is what matters, not the plumbing.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!