Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

deep-research深入研究

Agent Skill

deep-research 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

212

周安装

9

GitHub Stars

3

下载量

74
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:deep-research(深入研究)
来源仓库:https://github.com/braselog/researchassistant
仓库路径:skills/deep-research
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/braselog/researchassistant --skill deep-research
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/braselog/researchassistant --skill deep-research

简介

用于开展深入文献调研,提供带引用验证的学术级信息检索服务。

  • 适用于科研项目启动、方法论探索或领域现状分析,严格杜绝虚构引用。
  • 采用五步结构化流程,确保研究可复现与严谨性。
  • 需用户提供明确主题,并配合来源仓库核验具体实现细节。
  • deep-research 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Deep Literature Research

Conduct a thorough literature search on a topic with verified citations. CRITICAL: Never fabricate citations. Every claim must have a verifiable source.

When to Use

  • Starting a new project (research core concepts)
  • Exploring methodology options
  • Understanding the current state of a field
  • Finding prior work on a specific technique

Usage

/deep_research [topic]
/deep_research normalization methods for RNA-seq
/deep_research machine learning in proteomics

The 5-Step Literature Review Process

Follow this framework for rigorous, reproducible literature reviews:

1. DEFINE SCOPE    → What are we looking for? Set boundaries.
2. SEARCH          → Systematic, documented search across databases.
3. EVALUATE        → Assess source quality and relevance.
4. SYNTHESIZE      → Identify themes, patterns, and gaps.
5. DOCUMENT        → Write findings with proper citations.

Execution Steps

1. Understand the Research Need (Define Scope)

If topic is vague, ask clarifying questions:

  • "What specific aspect of [topic] are you most interested in?"
  • "Are you looking for methodological approaches, theoretical background, or applications?"
  • "Any specific time range? (e.g., last 5 years, seminal works)"

2. Generate Search Strategy

Break the topic into searchable concepts:

## Search Strategy for: [Topic]

### Core Concepts
1. [Primary concept] - synonyms: [alternatives]
2. [Secondary concept] - synonyms: [alternatives]
3. [Methodological aspect]

### Search Queries
- "[concept1] AND [concept2]"
- "[method] in [application domain]"
- "review [topic]" (for overview papers)

### Key Databases
- PubMed (biomedical)
- arXiv (computational, preprints)
- Google Scholar (broad)
- Semantic Scholar (AI-enhanced)

3. Evaluate Sources

Apply the ACRAP criteria to each source:

CriterionQuestions to Ask
AuthorityWho wrote it? What are their credentials? Institutional affiliation?
CurrencyWhen published? Is it current for this field? (Generally <5 years, seminal works excepted)
RelevanceDoes it directly address the research question?
AccuracyIs it peer-reviewed? Are claims supported by evidence?
PurposeWhy was it written? Any funding bias or conflicts of interest?

Quick Assessment:

  • ✅ High quality: Peer-reviewed, reputable journal, clear methodology
  • ⚠️ Use with caution: Preprints, conference papers, older works
  • ❌ Avoid: Non-peer-reviewed, predatory journals, unsupported claims

4. Conduct Research

CRITICAL RULES:

  1. ✅ Only include claims with verifiable sources
  2. ✅ Format citations properly (Author et al., Year)
  3. ✅ Include DOI or URL when available
  4. ❌ NEVER fabricate or guess citations
  5. ❌ NEVER make up author names, years, or findings
  6. ✅ If no source exists, explicitly state: "Gap identified: No literature found on [specific topic]"
  7. ✅ If uncertain, say: "Limited sources found. Manual verification recommended."

5. Organize Findings

Structure the output as:

# Literature Review: [Topic]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of the field]

## Current State of the Field

### [Theme 1]
[Synthesized findings with citations]

Key findings:
- Finding 1 (Author et al., Year)
- Finding 2 (Author et al., Year)

### [Theme 2]
[Synthesized findings]

### Methodological Approaches
[What methods are commonly used]

### Gaps in the Literature
- Gap 1: [What's missing or unexplored]
- Gap 2: [Contradictions or debates]

## Seminal Works
[Important foundational papers that should be cited]

## Recent Advances (Last 2-3 years)
[Most current developments]

## Implications for This Project
[How this literature relates to the user's aims]

## References

[Full BibTeX entries for all citations]

6. Save Outputs

Save to .research/literature/:

  • [topic-slug].md - The literature summary
  • [topic-slug].bib - BibTeX citations

Example:

.research/literature/
├── rna-seq-normalization.md
└── rna-seq-normalization.bib

7. Prompt Next Steps

After completing:

Literature review saved to .research/literature/[topic].md

Suggested next steps:
A) Run /write_background to draft your background section
B) Run /deep_research on another topic: [suggest related topic]
C) Review the findings and refine your project aims

Would you like to explore any of these sources in more detail?

Citation Format Standards

In-Text Citations

  • Single author: (Smith, 2023)
  • Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2023)
  • Three+ authors: (Smith et al., 2023)
  • Multiple citations: (Smith, 2023; Jones, 2022)

BibTeX Format

@article{smith2023keyword,
  author = {Smith, John and Jones, Jane and Williams, Bob},
  title = {Title of the Paper},
  journal = {Journal Name},
  year = {2023},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {123-145},
  doi = {10.1234/example.doi}
}

Handling Uncertainty

When sources are limited:

⚠️ Limited sources found on [specific topic].
Available sources cover [related area] but not [specific aspect].
Recommend:
- Manual search in [specific database]
- Consultation with domain expert
- This may represent a gap in the field

When sources conflict:

📊 Conflicting findings in the literature:
- Position A: [claim] (Author1, Year)
- Position B: [opposing claim] (Author2, Year)
Current consensus appears to favor [position] based on [evidence].

When no sources found:

🔍 Gap identified: No peer-reviewed literature found on [topic].
This could mean:
- Novel research opportunity
- Need for different search terms
- Topic may be covered under different terminology
Suggested alternative searches: [alternatives]

Quality Checks

Before finalizing, verify:

  • Every factual claim has a citation
  • All citations are real and verifiable
  • BibTeX entries are complete
  • DOIs are included where available
  • No made-up author names or publication details
  • Gaps and limitations are explicitly stated

Related Skills

  • write-background - Use literature to draft background section
  • next - Get next suggested step

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

36.14%
按下载量换算27

Claude

30.53%
按下载量换算23

Cursor

20.85%
按下载量换算15

Gemini CLI

10.09%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills