Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ralph-prompt-research(拉尔夫提示研究)

用于辅助提示词、系统指令、Agent 行为约束和工作流模板的整理。它适合让 Agent 规范任务边界、统一输出格式、拆分操作步骤或优化提示词可复用性。使用时需要保留真实业务约束,不要把示例当硬规则;涉及自动执行、外部工具或高风险操作时,应在提示词中明确确认步骤、权限边界和失败处理方式。

ralph-prompt-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,权限为权限未标注;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 59,221。

总安装 392周安装 16GitHub Stars 9下载 125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
MIT

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:ralph-prompt-research(拉尔夫提示研究)
来源仓库:https://github.com/adaptationio/skrillz
仓库路径:skills/ralph-prompt-research
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/adaptationio/skrillz --skill ralph-prompt-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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/adaptationio/skrillz --skill ralph-prompt-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。

用于辅助提示词、系统指令和工作流模板的整理。适合规范任务边界、统一输出格式和优化可复用性。使用时需保留真实业务约束,不要把示例当硬规则。涉及自动执行时应明确确认步骤和权限边界。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

ralph-prompt-research 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ralph-prompt-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/adaptationio/skrillz --skill ralph-prompt-rese…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

ralph-prompt-research 怎么安装?

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

ralph-prompt-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。

ralph-prompt-research 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

ralph-prompt-research 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ralph-prompt-research 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 392 次,近一周安装 16 次,下载 125 次,GitHub 9 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。

ralph-prompt-research 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 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。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 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
ralph-prompt-research

拉尔夫提示研究 · 本页

3929权限未标注MIT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

Ralph Prompt Generator: Research & Analysis

Overview

Generates structured prompts for research, analysis, and planning tasks using the Ralph Wiggum technique. These prompts define clear research methodology, required sources, synthesis requirements, and concrete deliverables rather than code.

Best For:

  • Codebase analysis and audits
  • Security vulnerability assessments
  • Technology research and comparison
  • Migration planning
  • Architecture design documents
  • Performance analysis
  • Dependency audits
  • Documentation generation from code

Ralph Philosophy: This generator embraces the principle that failures are deterministic and fixable. Each research iteration builds on previous findings. Don't fear incomplete first passes—they're expected and provide data for deeper analysis in subsequent iterations.

Quick Start

Input Required:

  1. Research objective (what you need to understand/analyze)
  2. Scope (what to include/exclude)
  3. Deliverable format (report, plan, document)
  4. Completion promise

Generate prompt with:

Generate a Ralph research prompt for:
Objective: [What to research/analyze]
Scope: [What's included]
Deliverable: [What to produce]
Promise: [COMPLETION_PHRASE]

Prompt Generation Workflow

Step 1: Define Research Scope

Research Definition Template:

OBJECTIVE: [What question to answer or what to analyze]
SCOPE:
  Include: [What's in scope]
  Exclude: [What's explicitly out of scope]
SOURCES: [Where to look for information]
DELIVERABLE: [What artifact to produce]
SUCCESS: [How to know research is complete]

Step 2: Map Research Phases

Standard research phases:

PhaseNamePurposeDeliverable
1DiscoveryIdentify what existsInventory/map
2AnalysisDeep dive into findingsAnalysis notes
3SynthesisDraw conclusionsFindings summary
4RecommendationsActionable next stepsRecommendation doc
5DocumentationFinal deliverableComplete report

Step 3: Define Completion Criteria

Research completion criteria must be:

  • Based on coverage (examined all relevant items)
  • Based on depth (sufficient analysis per item)
  • Based on deliverable completeness (all sections written)

Examples:

Research TypeCompletion Criteria
Security auditAll OWASP categories checked, all findings documented
Codebase analysisAll modules examined, architecture documented
Tech comparisonAll options evaluated against all criteria
Migration planAll systems inventoried, migration steps defined

Step 4: Structure the Prompt

Use this template:

# Research: [Research Title]

## Objective
[Clear statement of what this research aims to answer or analyze]

## Scope

### In Scope
- [Item 1 to analyze]
- [Item 2 to analyze]
- [Item 3 to analyze]

### Out of Scope
- [Explicitly excluded 1]
- [Explicitly excluded 2]

## Sources to Examine
- [Source type 1]: [Where to find]
- [Source type 2]: [Where to find]
- [Source type 3]: [Where to find]

---

## Phase 1: Discovery

### Objective
Create comprehensive inventory of [what to inventory].

### Tasks
1. [Discovery task 1]
2. [Discovery task 2]
3. [Discovery task 3]

### Deliverable: Inventory
Create `[filename].md` with:

[Inventory Title]

Items Found

#ItemLocationTypeNotes
1
2

### Phase 1 Success Criteria

- All [scope items] examined
- Inventory file created
- No areas unexplored

### Phase 1 Checkpoint

Document in inventory file:

DISCOVERY COMPLETE:

  • Items found: [count]
  • Areas examined: [list]
  • Coverage: Complete/Partial

---

## Phase 2: Analysis

### Objective

Deep analysis of each discovered item.

### Analysis Framework

For each item, analyze:

- [Dimension 1]: [What to examine]
- [Dimension 2]: [What to examine]
- [Dimension 3]: [What to examine]

### Tasks

1. Analyze each item against framework
2. Document findings per item
3. Identify patterns across items
4. Note anomalies or concerns

### Deliverable: Analysis Notes

Create `[analysis-filename].md` with:

Analysis: [Item Name]

[Dimension 1]

[Findings]

[Dimension 2]

[Findings]

[Dimension 3]

[Findings]

Summary

[Key takeaways for this item]


### Phase 2 Success Criteria

- All inventory items analyzed
- Analysis notes for each item
- Patterns identified
- Anomalies documented

### Phase 2 Checkpoint

ANALYSIS COMPLETE:

  • Items analyzed: [X/Y]
  • Key patterns: [list]
  • Concerns identified: [count]

---

## Phase 3: Synthesis

### Objective

Synthesize findings into coherent conclusions.

### Tasks

1. Review all analysis notes
2. Identify overarching themes
3. Draw conclusions from patterns
4. Prioritize findings by impact
5. Formulate key insights

### Deliverable: Findings Summary

Create `[findings-filename].md` with:

Research Findings: [Topic]

Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraphs summarizing key findings]

Key Findings

  1. [Finding 1]: [Description and evidence]
  2. [Finding 2]: [Description and evidence]
  3. [Finding 3]: [Description and evidence]

Patterns Observed

  • [Pattern 1]
  • [Pattern 2]

Areas of Concern

  1. [Concern 1]: [Details]
  2. [Concern 2]: [Details]

Data Summary

  • Total items examined: [X]
  • Categories: [list]
  • Analysis coverage: [X%]

### Phase 3 Success Criteria

- All findings synthesized
- Conclusions supported by evidence
- Priorities established
- Summary document complete

---

## Phase 4: Recommendations

### Objective

Provide actionable recommendations based on findings.

### Tasks

1. Develop recommendations for each finding
2. Prioritize by impact and effort
3. Identify dependencies between recommendations
4. Create action timeline (if applicable)

### Deliverable: Recommendations

Add to findings document or create separate:

Recommendations

High Priority (Address Immediately)

  1. [Recommendation]

- Rationale: [Why] - Effort: [Low/Medium/High] - Impact: [Low/Medium/High] - Dependencies: [Any]

Medium Priority (Plan for Soon)

[...]

Low Priority (Future Consideration)

[...]

Implementation Order

  1. First: [Recommendation X]
  2. Then: [Recommendation Y]
  3. Finally: [Recommendation Z]

### Phase 4 Success Criteria

- All findings have recommendations
- Priorities assigned
- Implementation order defined
- Dependencies identified

---

## Phase 5: Final Documentation

### Objective

Produce final polished deliverable.

### Tasks

1. Compile all sections into final document
2. Add executive summary
3. Review for completeness
4. Ensure actionability
5. Format consistently

### Deliverable: Final Report

Create `[final-report].md` with all sections:

1. Executive Summary
2. Scope and Methodology
3. Findings
4. Analysis
5. Recommendations
6. Appendix (raw data if needed)

### Phase 5 Success Criteria

- All sections complete
- Executive summary written
- Consistent formatting
- No TODO items
- Actionable and clear

---

## Final Verification

### Completeness Checklist

- Phase 1: Discovery complete, inventory exists
- Phase 2: All items analyzed, notes exist
- Phase 3: Findings synthesized, summary exists
- Phase 4: Recommendations provided, prioritized
- Phase 5: Final document complete

### Quality Checklist

- All conclusions supported by evidence
- Recommendations are actionable
- Document is well-organized
- No sections are missing content
- Executive summary captures key points

## Completion

When ALL of the following are true:

- All 5 phases completed
- All deliverables created
- Completeness checklist verified
- Quality checklist verified

Output: [COMPLETION_PHRASE]

## Progress Tracking

RESEARCH PROGRESS: Phase 1 (Discovery): [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS] Phase 2 (Analysis): [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/NOT STARTED] Phase 3 (Synthesis): [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/NOT STARTED] Phase 4 (Recommendations): [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/NOT STARTED] Phase 5 (Documentation): [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/NOT STARTED]

Items examined: [X/Y] Deliverables created: [list]


## If Stuck

- Document what information is missing
- List sources already examined
- Identify the specific gap
- Do NOT skip analysis or output false promise

Example Prompts

Example 1: Security Audit

Input:

  • Objective: Identify security vulnerabilities in authentication module
  • Scope: src/auth/ directory
  • Deliverable: Security audit report with findings and fixes
  • Promise: SECURITY_AUDIT_COMPLETE

Generated Prompt:

# Research: Authentication Security Audit

## Objective
Identify security vulnerabilities in the authentication module following OWASP guidelines and provide remediation recommendations.

## Scope

### In Scope
- All files in src/auth/
- Authentication flows (login, signup, password reset)
- Session management
- Token handling
- Input validation

### Out of Scope
- Authorization (permissions, roles)
- Third-party auth providers
- Frontend security

## Sources to Examine
- Code files: src/auth/**/*.ts
- Tests: tests/auth/**/*.ts
- Configuration: auth-related config files
- Dependencies: auth-related npm packages

---

## Phase 1: Discovery

### Tasks
1. List all files in auth module
2. Identify all entry points (routes)
3. Map authentication flows
4. Identify external dependencies
5. List all sensitive operations

### Deliverable: auth-inventory.md

Auth Module Inventory

Files

FilePurposeEntry PointsSensitive Ops

Dependencies

| Package | Version | Security Notes |

Authentication Flows

  1. Login: [path]
  2. Signup: [path]

[...]


### Phase 1 Success

- All auth files listed
- All entry points identified
- Flows mapped
- Dependencies inventoried

---

## Phase 2: Analysis

### Security Analysis Framework

For each component, check:

- **A1 Injection**: SQL, NoSQL, command injection risks
- **A2 Broken Auth**: Weak passwords, session issues
- **A3 Sensitive Data**: Password storage, token exposure
- **A4 XXE**: XML parsing vulnerabilities
- **A5 Access Control**: Proper authorization checks
- **A6 Misconfiguration**: Insecure defaults
- **A7 XSS**: User input handling
- **A8 Deserialization**: Unsafe object handling
- **A9 Components**: Vulnerable dependencies
- **A10 Logging**: Insufficient monitoring

### Tasks

1. Analyze each file against OWASP framework
2. Check password hashing implementation
3. Review JWT token handling
4. Examine session management
5. Check input validation

### Deliverable: security-analysis.md

Per-file analysis with vulnerabilities found.

---

## Phase 3: Synthesis

### Tasks

1. Categorize all vulnerabilities by severity
2. Identify systemic issues
3. Calculate risk scores
4. Prioritize by exploitability

### Deliverable: security-findings.md

Security Findings

Critical (Requires Immediate Action)

  • [Vulnerability]: [Location] - [Impact]

High

[...]

Medium

[...]

Low

[...]

Summary Statistics

  • Critical: X
  • High: X
  • Medium: X
  • Low: X

---

## Phase 4: Recommendations

### Tasks

1. Provide fix for each vulnerability
2. Prioritize fixes by risk
3. Estimate effort for each fix
4. Identify quick wins

### Deliverable: remediation-plan.md

Remediation Plan

Immediate Actions

  1. [Fix]: [How] - [Effort]

Short-term (This Sprint)

[...]

Medium-term

[...]


---

## Phase 5: Final Report

### Deliverable: AUTH-SECURITY-AUDIT.md

Complete report with:

1. Executive Summary
2. Methodology
3. Findings by Severity
4. Detailed Vulnerability Descriptions
5. Remediation Plan
6. Verification Steps

---

## Completion

When audit report complete with all vulnerabilities documented and remediation provided:

Output: SECURITY_AUDIT_COMPLETE

Example 2: Technology Comparison

Input:

  • Objective: Compare React vs Vue vs Svelte for new frontend
  • Scope: Team skills, project requirements, ecosystem
  • Deliverable: Comparison report with recommendation
  • Promise: FRAMEWORK_COMPARISON_COMPLETE

Generated Prompt:

# Research: Frontend Framework Comparison

## Objective
Compare React, Vue, and Svelte to recommend the best framework for the new frontend project based on team skills, project requirements, and ecosystem.

## Scope

### In Scope
- Learning curve for team
- Performance characteristics
- Ecosystem (libraries, tools)
- Community and support
- Project requirements fit
- Long-term maintainability

### Out of Scope
- Mobile development (React Native, etc.)
- SSR frameworks (Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit)
- Backend considerations

---

## Phase 1: Discovery

### Tasks
1. Document team's current skills
2. List project requirements
3. Identify key evaluation criteria
4. Gather framework documentation

### Deliverable: evaluation-criteria.md

Evaluation Framework

Team Context

  • Current experience: [frameworks]
  • Available learning time: [duration]
  • Team size: [N]

Project Requirements

  • [Requirement 1]
  • [Requirement 2]

[...]

Evaluation Criteria

CriterionWeightReason
Learning curve25%Team has limited React experience
Performance20%App will be data-heavy

[...]


---

## Phase 2: Analysis

### Analysis Framework

For each framework:

- **Learning Curve**: Time to productivity
- **Performance**: Bundle size, runtime speed, memory
- **Ecosystem**: Available libraries, tools, IDE support
- **Community**: Documentation, Stack Overflow, GitHub activity
- **Hiring**: Developer availability
- **Architecture**: How it fits project patterns

### Deliverable: framework-analysis.md

React Analysis

Learning Curve

[Analysis]

Performance

[Analysis]

[... repeat for Vue and Svelte]


---

## Phase 3: Synthesis

### Tasks

1. Score each framework on each criterion
2. Apply weights
3. Calculate overall scores
4. Identify dealbreakers

### Deliverable: comparison-matrix.md

Framework Comparison Matrix

CriterionWeightReactVueSvelte
Learning Curve25%344
Performance20%345

[...] | Weighted Total | | X.X | X.X | X.X |


---

## Phase 4: Recommendations

### Deliverable: recommendation.md

Framework Recommendation

Recommendation: [Framework]

Rationale

[Why this framework is best for this team and project]

Advantages

  • [Advantage 1]
  • [Advantage 2]

Concerns and Mitigations

  • [Concern 1]: [How to address]

Implementation Approach

  1. [Step 1]
  2. [Step 2]

[...]


---

## Phase 5: Final Report

### Deliverable: FRAMEWORK-COMPARISON-REPORT.md

---

## Completion

When complete comparison with recommendation:

Output: FRAMEWORK_COMPARISON_COMPLETE

Best Practices

Research Methodology

  • Define scope explicitly (what's in/out)
  • Use consistent analysis framework
  • Document evidence for conclusions
  • Separate findings from opinions

Deliverables

  • Create artifacts as you go
  • Use consistent format
  • Include data to support conclusions
  • Make recommendations actionable

DO:

  • Define clear scope boundaries
  • Create deliverables at each phase
  • Support conclusions with evidence
  • Provide actionable recommendations
  • Track progress systematically

DON'T:

  • Skip the discovery phase
  • Make recommendations without evidence
  • Leave sections incomplete
  • Output promise before documentation

Integration with Ralph Loop

/ralph-wiggum:ralph-loop "[paste generated prompt]" --completion-promise "YOUR_PROMISE" --max-iterations 50

Recommended iterations by research complexity:

  • Simple audit (single module): --max-iterations 30-40
  • Comparison (3-5 options): --max-iterations 40-60
  • Full codebase analysis: --max-iterations 70-100
  • Complex planning: --max-iterations 60-80

For single-task prompts, see ralph-prompt-single-task. For multi-task prompts, see ralph-prompt-multi-task. For project-level prompts, see ralph-prompt-project.

平台分布

github-copilot

30.98%
按下载量换算39

Claude Code

20.11%
按下载量换算25

mcpjam

16.48%
按下载量换算21

moltbot

11.33%
按下载量换算14

windsurf

6.82%
按下载量换算9

zencoder

3.58%
按下载量换算4

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills