スキル一覧に戻る
outfitter-dev

research-and-report

by outfitter-dev

Rules files & configurations for agents

17🍴 0📅 2026年1月23日
GitHubで見るManusで実行

SKILL.md


name: research-and-report version: 2.0.0 description: This skill should be used when researching best practices, evaluating technologies, comparing approaches, or when "research", "evaluation", or "comparison" are mentioned.

Research

Systematic investigation → evidence-based analysis → authoritative recommendations.

<when_to_use>

  • Technology evaluation and comparison
  • Documentation discovery and troubleshooting
  • Best practices and industry standards research
  • Implementation guidance with authoritative sources

NOT for: quick lookups, well-known patterns, time-critical debugging without investigation phase

</when_to_use>

Track with TodoWrite. Phases advance only, never regress.

PhaseTriggeractiveForm
Analyze RequestSession start"Analyzing research request"
Discover SourcesCriteria defined"Discovering sources"
Gather InformationSources identified"Gathering information"
Synthesize FindingsInformation gathered"Synthesizing findings"
Compile ReportSynthesis complete"Compiling report"

Workflow:

  • Start: Create "Analyze Request" as in_progress
  • Transition: Mark current completed, add next in_progress
  • Simple queries: Skip directly to "Gather Information" if unambiguous
  • Gaps during synthesis: Add new "Gather Information" task
  • Early termination: Skip to "Compile Report" with caveats

Five-phase systematic approach:

1. Question Phase — Define scope

  • Decision to be made?
  • Evaluation parameters? (performance, maintainability, security, adoption)
  • Constraints? (timeline, expertise, infrastructure)

2. Discovery Phase — Multi-source retrieval

Use CasePrimarySecondaryTertiary
Official docscontext7octocodefirecrawl
Troubleshootingoctocode issuesfirecrawl communitycontext7 guides
Code examplesoctocode reposfirecrawl tutorialscontext7 examples
Technology evalParallel allCross-referenceValidate

3. Evaluation Phase — Analyze against criteria

CriterionMetrics
PerformanceBenchmarks, latency, throughput, memory
MaintainabilityCode complexity, docs quality, community activity
SecurityCVEs, audits, compliance
AdoptionDownloads, production usage, industry patterns

4. Comparison Phase — Systematic tradeoff analysis

For each option: Strengths → Weaknesses → Best fit → Deal breakers

5. Recommendation Phase — Clear guidance with rationale

Primary recommendation → Alternatives → Implementation steps → Limitations

Three MCP servers for multi-source research:

ToolBest ForKey Functions
context7Official docs, API refsresolve-library-id, get-library-docs
octocodeCode examples, issuespackageSearch, githubSearchCode, githubSearchIssues
firecrawlTutorials, benchmarkssearch, scrape, map

Execution patterns:

  • Parallel: Run independent queries simultaneously for speed
  • Fallback: context7 → octocode → firecrawl if primary fails
  • Progressive: Start broad, narrow based on findings

See tool-selection.md for detailed usage.

<discovery_patterns>

Common research workflows:

ScenarioApproach
Library InstallationPackage search → Official docs → Installation guide
Error ResolutionParse error → Search issues → Official troubleshooting → Community solutions
API ExplorationDocumentation ID → API reference → Real usage examples
Technology ComparisonParallel all sources → Cross-reference → Build matrix → Recommend

See discovery-patterns.md for detailed workflows.

</discovery_patterns>

<findings_format>

Two output modes:

Evaluation Mode (recommendations):

Finding: { assertion }
Source: { authoritative source with link }
Confidence: High/Medium/Low — { rationale }

Discovery Mode (gathering):

Found: { what was discovered }
Source: { where from with link }
Notes: { context or caveats }

</findings_format>

<response_structure>

## Research Summary
Brief overview — what investigated, sources consulted.

## Options Discovered
1. **Option A** — description
2. **Option B** — description

## Comparison Matrix
| Criterion | Option A | Option B |
|-----------|----------|----------|

## Recommendation
### Primary: [Option Name]
**Rationale**: reasoning + evidence
**Confidence**: level + explanation

### Alternatives
When to choose differently.

## Implementation Guidance
Next steps, common pitfalls, validation.

## Sources
- Official, benchmarks, case studies, community

</response_structure>

Always include:

  • Direct citations with links
  • Confidence levels and limitations
  • Context about when recommendations may not apply

Always validate:

  • Version is latest stable
  • Documentation matches user context
  • Critical info cross-referenced
  • Code examples complete and runnable

Proactively flag:

  • Deprecated approaches with modern alternatives
  • Missing prerequisites
  • Common pitfalls and gotchas
  • Related tools in ecosystem

ALWAYS:

  • Create "Analyze Request" todo at session start
  • One phase in_progress at a time
  • Use multi-source approach (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
  • Provide direct citations with links
  • Cross-reference critical information
  • Include confidence levels and limitations

NEVER:

  • Skip "Analyze Request" phase without defining scope
  • Single-source when multi-source available
  • Deliver recommendations without citations
  • Include deprecated approaches without flagging
  • Omit limitations and edge cases

Deep-dive documentation:

Related resources:

スコア

総合スコア

60/100

リポジトリの品質指標に基づく評価

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

3ヶ月以内に更新がある

0/10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

0/5

レビュー

💬

レビュー機能は近日公開予定です