Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Wiki Research Personal

ASecurity

Weekly research agent for #personal queue items — travel, products, life planning. Runs the 5-step research loop with a practical, actionable focus.

8 stars
0 votes
0 copies
2 views
Added 9/6/2026
researchgo

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/6/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add v1truv1us/ai-eng-system --skill wiki-research-personal --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Wiki Research Personal?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Wiki Research Personal
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/v1truv1us-wiki-research-personal/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/v1truv1us-wiki-research-personal)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: wiki-research-personal
description: Weekly research agent for #personal queue items — travel, products, life planning. Runs the 5-step research loop with a practical, actionable focus.
---

# Wiki Research: Personal

Process `#personal` items from the queue — travel, products, life planning, health, and anything not engineering or academic. Uses the 5-step loop tuned for practical decisions.

## Vault location
`/app/data/vault/`

## When to skip the loop
If the topic is a single recommendation you need (a hotel, a specific product), do one `web_search` (engine `brave`) for recent reviews, run `intelli_extract` on the top result, write a one-paragraph page, stop. The full loop is for decisions with trade-offs.

## The 5-step loop

Each step has a gate. Do not advance until the gate is met.

### 1 — Define

Before searching, write three sentences:
- **Assumption:** what you currently believe is true about this topic
- **Decision shape:** the actual decision you're trying to make (buy / choose / plan / schedule / diagnose)
- **Criteria:** what "good" looks like — the 3–5 factors that matter most (price, time, quality, location, durability, etc.)

**Gate:** a reader could list the criteria the decision will be judged on.

### 2 — Triage

Identify the 2–3 source types most likely to answer. For personal topics, priority order:

1. Recent first-hand accounts (reviews, travel reports, build logs) — `web_search` engine `brave`, then `intelli_extract` on individual reviews
2. Comparison / round-up articles from the last 12 months
3. Community discussion (Reddit, Hacker News, specialised forums) for what goes wrong in practice
4. Official specs / datasheets / pricing pages
5. Adjacent vault pages (`wiki/index.md`)

Run 2–3 Brave queries with the criteria from Step 1 in mind. For each promising URL, use `intelli_extract` with a `focusPrompt` naming the specific criterion.

**Gate:** you can name at least one strong source per criterion.

### 3 — Query

Pull the answer from the triaged sources. For personal topics:

- Lead with concrete numbers (price, weight, battery life, time required)
- Capture trade-offs explicitly ("X is better at A but worse at B")
- Capture failure modes ("lasts about 18 months before the hinge cracks")
- Capture recency — for products and travel, anything older than 18 months is suspect

**Gate:** every claim has at least one source URL attached.

### 4 — Verify

For every claim, assign one tier:
- **FACT** — directly stated in a source, with citation
- **LIKELY** — consistent with sources but inferred
- **SPECULATIVE** — your reasoning beyond what sources support
- **UNKNOWN** — neither you nor the sources say

For any claim that drives a money or time decision (price, availability, schedule), run a second `web_search` to corroborate against an independent source.

**Gate:** every claim has a tier.

### 5 — Report

Write the wiki page. Lead with a recommendation or decision matrix if the topic is a choice. Append a Limitations section.

## Wiki page format

```markdown
---
tags: [#personal]
last_researched: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# <Title>

> One-sentence summary.

## Define
- **Decision shape:** ...
- **Criteria:** ...

## Findings

### <Criterion 1>
- **FACT:** <claim> [^1]

### <Criterion 2>
- **FACT:** <claim> [^2]
- **LIKELY:** <claim>

### <Criterion 3>
...

## Recommendation / Trade-offs

If the topic is a choice: state the recommendation with conditions ("X if you prioritise A; Y if you prioritise B").

## Limitations
- What the sources did not cover
- Which claims were not independently verified
- Recency caveats — what's likely to have changed since the sources were written

## Sources
[^1]: <url> — accessed YYYY-MM-DD
[^2]: <url> — accessed YYYY-MM-DD
```

## Per-run workflow

1. Read `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md` in the vault root.
2. Find all unchecked items (`- [ ]`) under `## #personal`. If none, stop.
3. For each real unchecked item, run the 5-step loop.
4. Check `wiki/index.md` for an existing page. Update if found; otherwise create `wiki/personal/<slug>.md`.
5. Update `wiki/index.md`.
6. Mark done in `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md`: `- [x]` + ` — researched YYYY-MM-DD`.
7. Move `[x]` items to `## Archive`.
8. Append entry to `wiki/log.md`:
   ```
   ## [YYYY-MM-DD] ingest | research-queue #personal | <topics> → <pages>
   ```

## Rules
- Never edit `raw/`, `Openclaw articles/`, or `personal stuff/`.
- Only write to `wiki/` and `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md`.
- Lead with concrete numbers and trade-offs, not prose.
- If a topic is too vague to write a Decision shape, mark `[x]` with `— skipped: too vague, clarify topic`.
- Today's date comes from system context.

Attribution

v1truv1usv1truv1us
View sourceMore from v1truv1us →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

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 (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Related Skills

Competitor Analysis

This skill provides comprehensive analysis of competitor SEO and GEO strategies, revealing what's working in your market and identifying opportunities to outperform the competition.

1823 votes

Deep Research

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report co...

494352 votes

Paperclip Distill

Use when an operation issue is a Paperclip cursor-window, distill, or backfill — `operationType: "distill"` or `"backfill"` and the body references a Paperclip source bundle for a project or root issue. Turn raw Paperclip activity into a wiki-insightful project page, decisions log, and history note. This skill exists specifically to replace the stiff, datestamp-heavy templated output that the deterministic distiller produces.

813271 votes

Academic Pipeline

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end p...

494351 votes

Exa Search

Semantic search, similar content discovery, and structured research using Exa API

304951 votes
View all in research →