Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

research-to-essay(研究到论文)

research-to-essay 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。

research-to-essay 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,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 70,604。

总安装 210周安装 9GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 73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:research-to-essay(研究到论文)
来源仓库:https://github.com/leegonzales/aiskills
仓库路径:skills/research-to-essay
安装命令:
npx skills add leegonzales/aiskills --skill "research-to-essay"
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。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add leegonzales/aiskills --skill "research-to-essay"

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。

发现并安装 AI 代理的技能,用于扩展 Agent 能力。适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 等宿主环境。通过 GitHub 仓库安装,支持技能动态加载。需确认 token 权限及是否允许联网或外部调用。建议检查仓库维护状态和技能兼容性。

research-to-essay 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/research-to-essay

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 leegonzales/aiskills --skill "research-to-essay";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

    它需要需要联网,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

research-to-essay 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add leegonzales/aiskills --skill "research-to-essay"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

research-to-essay 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。

research-to-essay 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

research-to-essay 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。

research-to-essay 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 210 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 73 次。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。

research-to-essay 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

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。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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
research-to-essay

研究到论文 · 本页

210—需要联网MIT未收录

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

name
research-to-essay
description
Research-driven essay and post creation with thematic synthesis, citation management, and voice calibration. Use when creating Substack/LinkedIn posts, long-form essays synthesizing multiple sources, or publication-grade writing requiring web search, narrative arc, and proper attribution. Triggers include "research and write about [topic]" or "dig into this idea and write.
license
Complete terms in LICENSE.txt

Research-to-Essay Skill

Systematic workflow for producing publication-grade essays from research. Handles multi-source synthesis, narrative construction, voice calibration, and citation management.

Core Workflow

1. Intake & Planning

Parse user request to determine:

  • Format target: Substack (1500-3000w), LinkedIn (150-300w), Academic (3000-8000w), or Executive Brief (500-1000w)
  • Topic & angle: What question/claim is central?
  • Essay structure: Which arc fits? (Persuasive, Exploratory, Diagnostic, Narrative-Conceptual, Synthesis)

- Consult references/essay-structures.md for detailed arc patterns

  • Voice profile: Which register? (Poetic Rigor, Professional Signal, Scholarly Precision, Surgical Clarity)

- Consult references/voice-profiles.md for characteristics and forbidden patterns

Output from this phase: Research plan with target structure and voice


2. Research Execution

Conduct systematic research following source credibility hierarchy:

Search strategy:

  • Start with primary sources (research papers, official data, technical documentation)
  • Layer in expert analysis (domain specialists, academic reviews, investigative journalism)
  • Add informed commentary (practitioner Substacks, conference talks) for applied context
  • Avoid weak sources (social media speculation, content marketing, AI-generated farms)

Source quality requirements:

  • Minimum 5-8 sources for persuasive essays
  • Minimum 8-12 sources for exploratory essays
  • Minimum 6-10 sources for diagnostic essays
  • Always include strongest counter-argument sources
  • Prioritize recent sources for rapidly-changing topics, foundational sources for stable concepts

Citation extraction:

  • Record: title, URL, author, date, credibility tier (1-4), key claims
  • Use web_fetch to read full articles when web_search snippets insufficient
  • For each source, extract 3-5 core claims explicitly
  • Tag sources with themes for clustering

Consult references/research-patterns.md for:

  • Source credibility hierarchy (Tiers 1-4)
  • Research strategy by essay type
  • Quality checks and anti-patterns

3. Synthesis

Organize research into thematic structure using one of two methods:

Method A: Manual thematic clustering (for simpler essays)

  • Group claims by theme, not by source
  • Identify convergent claims (multiple sources agree) → high confidence
  • Identify divergent claims (sources disagree) → flag as tension
  • Map claim dependencies (which claims require which others)

Method B: Script-assisted synthesis (for complex multi-source essays)

  • Create JSON file with sources in required format (see script usage below)
  • Run scripts/synthesize_sources.py <sources.json> <output.md>
  • Review generated synthesis report showing themes, convergence, tensions

Script format:

[
  {
    "title": "Source Title",
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "source_type": "primary",
    "claims": ["Claim 1", "Claim 2"],
    "themes": ["theme1", "theme2"],
    "date": "2025-01-15",
    "credibility_tier": 1
  }
]

Synthesis output: Thematic map showing:

  • Core themes with supporting sources
  • Convergent evidence (agreement across sources)
  • Divergent claims (tensions or debates)
  • Gaps or under-supported areas

4. Drafting

Build essay iteratively using chosen structure template:

Template selection:

  • Use assets/essay-template.md for Substack/long-form
  • Use assets/linkedin-template.md for LinkedIn posts
  • Adapt templates based on selected essay structure from Step 1

Drafting principles:

  • Lead with strongest material: Hook in first paragraph, no throat-clearing
  • Integrate sources naturally: Embed citations in argument flow, don't list separately
  • Section logic: Each section should build necessarily on the previous
  • Evidence before abstraction: Concrete examples, then pattern extraction
  • Tension acknowledgment: Include counter-arguments and complications honestly
  • Progressive depth: Can write full essay in one pass OR build iteratively:

- Pass 1: Outline with section headers - Pass 2: Fill core argument sections - Pass 3: Add evidence and citations - Pass 4: Write intro/conclusion last

Voice application:

  • Apply selected voice profile consistently (from Step 1)
  • Check against forbidden patterns in references/voice-profiles.md
  • Calibrate tone dimensions: warmth, certainty, abstraction, humor

Citation style:

  • Substack/LinkedIn: Inline hyperlinks on key phrases, footnotes for tangential details
  • Academic: Numbered footnotes/endnotes with full bibliography
  • Executive: Minimal citation, only for key data points
  • Always cite: empirical claims, direct quotes, novel frameworks, counter-intuitive findings
  • Never cite: common knowledge, your own synthesis, widely-known facts

5. Refinement

Quality assurance checks before delivery:

Structural review:

  • [ ] Hook is genuinely compelling (test: would you click "read more"?)
  • [ ] Stakes are established early (why should reader care?)
  • [ ] Each section advances the argument necessarily
  • [ ] Conclusion reframes rather than summarizes
  • [ ] Length appropriate to format (Substack: 1500-3000w, LinkedIn: 150-300w)

Voice & style check:

  • [ ] Run prose-polish skill on draft
  • [ ] Check for forbidden patterns in selected voice profile
  • [ ] Verify tone consistency throughout
  • [ ] Confirm readability for target audience

Evidence & citation check:

  • [ ] Every major claim has warrant (evidence or citation)
  • [ ] Primary sources used for factual claims
  • [ ] Counter-arguments acknowledged with credible sources
  • [ ] No citation decay (secondary sources when primary available)
  • [ ] Links functional, citations complete

Platform-specific polish:

  • LinkedIn: Paragraph breaks every 2-3 sentences, key phrases bolded, CTA included
  • Substack: Section transitions smooth, footnotes formatted, metadata complete
  • Academic: All citations complete, methodology transparent, limitations noted

6. Delivery

Present final essay as artifact with metadata:

Include:

  • Complete essay in appropriate markdown format
  • Word count and target audience notation
  • Source list with tiers noted
  • Key frameworks or concepts referenced
  • Research date and any time-sensitivity notes

Optional additions based on context:

  • Alternative versions for different platforms (e.g., Substack long-form + LinkedIn teaser)
  • "Further Reading" section organized by theme
  • Open questions or research gaps identified
  • Suggested images or visual elements

When to Use References

Load these files as needed:

  • references/voice-profiles.md — When clarifying voice characteristics or checking against forbidden patterns
  • references/essay-structures.md — When uncertain about narrative arc or need structure template
  • references/research-patterns.md — When evaluating source quality, planning research strategy, or checking synthesis methodology

Load scripts when:

  • scripts/synthesize_sources.py — When dealing with 8+ sources requiring systematic thematic clustering

Quality Signals

High-quality output:

  • Opens with genuine insight, not preamble
  • Every paragraph necessary, no filler
  • Sources integrated into argument, not appended
  • Counter-arguments acknowledged, not buried
  • Conclusion offers new lens, not recap
  • Voice consistent and appropriate to format
  • Citations complete and properly tiered
  • Length justified by complexity, not padding

Red flags:

  • Generic opening ("In today's world...")
  • List structure when narrative needed
  • No acknowledgment of complexity or tradeoffs
  • All sources from same perspective
  • Summary conclusion
  • Inconsistent tone or register shifts
  • Weak or missing citations for key claims
  • Excessive length without proportional depth

Iteration Protocol

After delivering draft, typical refinement requests:

  • "Make this more [voice]" → Reload references/voice-profiles.md and adjust tone calibration
  • "Add more evidence for X" → Return to research phase for specific claim
  • "This section feels weak" → Restructure using references/essay-structures.md patterns
  • "Too long / too short" → Audit for filler vs. density, adjust scope
  • "Challenge this argument" → Load strongest counter-sources, revise tensions section

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Don't search once and write—iterate research based on draft gaps
  • Don't list sources separately from argument—integrate naturally
  • Don't write intro first—write it last after you know what you said
  • Don't ignore voice profile constraints—they prevent AI slop
  • Don't cite weak sources when primary available—tier matters
  • Don't pad length artificially—every paragraph must earn its keep
  • Don't summarize in conclusion—reframe or extrapolate instead

平台分布

Claude Code

23.27%
按下载量换算17

windsurf

23.83%
按下载量换算17

OpenCode

18.04%
按下载量换算13

Codex

12.78%
按下载量换算9

Antigravity

7.56%
按下载量换算6

Gemini CLI

3.48%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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。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