Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

deep-research(深入研究)

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。

deep-research 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 56,831。

总安装 445周安装 18GitHub Stars 4下载 140核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

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/petekp/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/deep-research
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/petekp/agent-skills --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/petekp/agent-skills --skill deep-research

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。deep-research 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合在关键词、任务场景或来源线索下快速定位候选结果。可结合来源仓库和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态及是否会触发联网或命令执行。

当前归类为研究检索,名称与类别一致,功能描述合理。

来源仓库内路径:skills/deep-research

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/petekp/agent-skills --skill deep-research;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

deep-research 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/petekp/agent-skills --skill deep-research。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

deep-research 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

deep-research 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

deep-research 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

deep-research 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 445 次,近一周安装 18 次,下载 140 次,GitHub 4 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

deep-research 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
deep-research

深入研究 · 本页

4454操作浏览器未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Deep Research

Systematic methodology for conducting exhaustive, accurate research using all available tools. Prioritizes correctness over speed.

Core Principles

  1. Multiple sources required — Never rely on a single source for important claims
  2. Cross-reference everything — Verify facts appear consistently across independent sources
  3. Citation mandatory — Every claim must have a source; no unsourced assertions
  4. Acknowledge uncertainty — When sources conflict or are weak, say so explicitly
  5. Prefer primary sources — Official docs > blog posts > forum answers > AI-generated content

Available Research Tools

Use these tools in combination based on the research topic:

ToolBest ForLimitations
WebSearchCurrent events, recent information, broad topic discoveryResults may be outdated, SEO-influenced
WebFetchReading specific URLs, extracting detailed contentRequires known URL
Playwright browserInteractive sites, paywalled content (if logged in), complex navigationSlower, requires more tokens
Context7/MCP docsLibrary/framework documentationOnly indexed libraries
OpenAI docs MCPOpenAI API specificsOpenAI only
Grep/Glob/ReadCodebase research, finding implementationsLocal files only

Research Workflow

Phase 1: Scope Definition

Before researching, clarify:

  1. Core question — What specific question(s) need answering?
  2. Required depth — Surface overview or exhaustive deep-dive?
  3. Recency requirements — Is timeliness critical? (API versions, current events, etc.)
  4. Authoritative sources — What would count as a definitive answer?

Ask clarifying questions if scope is ambiguous. Use AskUserQuestion for structured choices when multiple research directions are possible.

Phase 2: Source Discovery

Cast a wide net to find relevant sources:

1. WebSearch with multiple query variations
   - Try 3-5 different phrasings of the core question
   - Include technical terms AND plain language
   - Search for "[topic] official documentation"
   - Search for "[topic] research paper" or "[topic] study"

2. Identify authoritative sources from results
   - Official documentation sites
   - Academic papers / research institutions
   - Industry standards bodies
   - Recognized experts in the field

3. Check specialized tools
   - Context7 for library/framework docs
   - OpenAI docs MCP for OpenAI-specific topics
   - GitHub/codebase for implementation details

Source discovery heuristics:

  • Government and academic domains (.gov,.edu,.ac.uk) tend toward accuracy
  • Official project documentation is authoritative for that project
  • Wikipedia is a starting point, not an endpoint — follow its citations
  • Stack Overflow answers need verification; check votes and dates
  • Be skeptical of content farms and SEO-optimized listicles

Phase 3: Deep Reading

For each promising source:

  1. Fetch full content — Use WebFetch or browser to get complete text
  2. Extract key claims — Note specific facts, figures, dates, quotes
  3. Note source metadata — Author, date, organization, potential biases
  4. Identify citations — What sources does this source cite?
  5. Flag conflicts — Does this contradict other sources?

Reading strategy for different source types:

Source TypeStrategy
DocumentationRead relevant sections fully; note version/date
Research paperAbstract, conclusion, methodology in that order
News articleCheck publication date, author credentials, cited sources
Blog postVerify claims independently; note author's expertise
Forum/Q&ACheck answer date, votes, accepted status; verify independently

Phase 4: Cross-Verification

For each major claim:

  1. Find 2+ independent sources — Sources that don't cite each other
  2. Check for conflicts — Note any disagreements between sources
  3. Prefer newer sources — For rapidly evolving topics
  4. Weight by authority — Primary sources > secondary > tertiary

Conflict resolution:

  • When sources disagree, report all positions with citations
  • Investigate why they disagree (different contexts, outdated info, different definitions)
  • If one source is clearly more authoritative, note that
  • Never silently pick one version

Phase 5: Synthesis & Output

Structure findings clearly:

## Research Summary: [Topic]

### Key Findings

1. **[Finding 1]**
   - [Specific fact with citation]
   - [Supporting evidence]
   - Confidence: High/Medium/Low
   - Sources: [1], [2]

2. **[Finding 2]**
   ...

### Conflicts & Uncertainties

- [Area of disagreement]: Source A claims X [1], while Source B claims Y [2]. [Analysis of why they differ]

### Source Quality Assessment

| # | Source | Type | Authority | Recency | Notes |
|---|--------|------|-----------|---------|-------|
| 1 | [URL] | Official docs | High | 2024-01 | Primary source |
| 2 | [URL] | Research paper | High | 2023-06 | Peer-reviewed |
| 3 | [URL] | Blog | Medium | 2024-03 | Author is [expert] |

### Gaps & Limitations

- [What couldn't be verified]
- [Areas needing more research]

### Citations

[1] [Full citation with URL]
[2] [Full citation with URL]
...

Confidence Levels

Assign confidence to each finding:

LevelCriteria
High3+ independent authoritative sources agree; no conflicts
Medium2 sources agree, or 1 highly authoritative source; minor conflicts
LowSingle source, or significant conflicts between sources
UncertainSources conflict significantly; unable to determine truth

Always state confidence explicitly. "I'm not sure" is a valid research finding.

Citation Format

Use inline citations with numbered references:

The API rate limit is 60 requests per minute [1], though this can be increased
for enterprise accounts [2].

---
[1] OpenAI API Documentation, "Rate Limits", https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/rate-limits, accessed 2024-01-15
[2] OpenAI Enterprise FAQ, https://openai.com/enterprise, accessed 2024-01-15

Citation must include:

  • Source name/title
  • URL (if web source)
  • Access date (for web sources)
  • Publication date (if available)

Special Research Scenarios

Rapidly Evolving Topics (AI, crypto, etc.)

  • Prioritize sources from last 6 months
  • Check official changelogs and release notes
  • Note when information might be outdated
  • Consider using browser to check current state directly

Controversial Topics

  • Present multiple perspectives with citations for each
  • Identify the strongest arguments on each side
  • Note which sources might have biases and why
  • Don't pick sides unless evidence is overwhelming

Technical Implementation Questions

  • Check official documentation first (Context7, MCP servers)
  • Look for example code in GitHub
  • Verify against actual behavior if possible
  • Note version-specific differences

Comparative Research ("X vs Y")

  • Use same evaluation criteria for all options
  • Find sources that compare directly when possible
  • Check for bias (vendor-sponsored comparisons)
  • Note what each option is optimized for

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-PatternWhy It's BadInstead
Single sourceNo verificationAlways find 2+ sources
Uncited claimsUnverifiableEvery fact needs a source
Assuming first result is bestSEO!= accuracyEvaluate source quality
Ignoring conflictsHides uncertaintyReport all positions
Outdated sourcesInformation decayCheck publication dates
Trusting AI summariesMay hallucinateGo to primary sources
Stopping earlyIncomplete pictureResearch until diminishing returns

Completion Criteria

Research is complete when:

  1. Core question(s) answered with citations
  2. Key claims verified by 2+ independent sources
  3. Conflicts and uncertainties explicitly noted
  4. Source quality assessed for all citations
  5. Confidence levels assigned to findings
  6. Gaps and limitations documented

Reference Files

For detailed guidance on specific scenarios:

平台分布

Codex

38.54%
按下载量换算54

Claude

29.49%
按下载量换算41

Cursor

18.85%
按下载量换算26

Gemini CLI

10.79%
按下载量换算15

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

未通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills