All skills
imbad0202 avatar

/deep-research

@c5c1b45

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題, 심층 연구, 문헌 조사, 체계적 문헌고찰, 메타분석, 사실 확인, 연구 방향을 잡아줘, 연구 주제 정하는 것을 도와줘, revisión de literatura, metaanálisis

Use this Skill: https://skilld.dev/gh/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/deep-research

This session only. Nothing lands on disk.

examplesidea_diversity_coverage_gap_advisory.md

≈812 tokens on demand. Your agent reads this file only when SKILL.md points to it.

Idea Diversity / Coverage Gap Advisory Example

This example shows the two #257 advisory surfaces. Both are warnings for scholar attention, not blockers.

1. Socratic wording-pattern advisory

User draft:

I want to study "exploring the impact of AI feedback on student motivation."

Socratic mentor response excerpt:

[WORDING_PATTERN_ADVISORY]
Your phrasing "exploring the impact of AI feedback on student motivation" resembles a common AI-typical research-question shell: WP01 impact/effect frame. I am not judging the idea; I am only flagging the wording. What term, mechanism, site, or tension would a specialist in your field use instead?

What is the specific feedback situation you care about: automated scoring, formative comments, timing of feedback, or how students decide whether feedback is worth acting on?

Acceptable user choice:

  • Keep the original phrasing because it matches a target journal's framing.
  • Rephrase in domain-native terms, e.g. "How do first-year engineering students decide whether AI-generated formative comments are actionable during lab-report revision?"
  • Ask the mentor to help stress-test scope without rewriting the RQ.

Boundary: the advisory does not say the idea is generic or bad. It flags only the wording shell.

2. Lit-review distributional skew advisory

Search context:

  • RQ: "How do AI feedback systems shape student revision behavior in higher education?"
  • Final included sources: 25
  • Topic coverage: all major RQ subtopics covered
  • Known venue/method metadata:
    • 23/25 sources are post-2023 NLP or learning-analytics venues
    • 21/24 known-method entries are quantitative log-data studies
    • 18/20 known-geography entries are North America or Western Europe

Search Strategy Report excerpt:

### Coverage Distribution Advisory

DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
- Dimension: time distribution
- Concentration: 2023-2026 = 23/25 (92%)
- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether the RQ warrants earlier foundational work on feedback uptake, revision behavior, or formative assessment.
- Search response: add backward citation chaining from foundational feedback-literacy and formative-assessment works.

DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
- Dimension: methodological distribution
- Concentration: quantitative log-data studies = 21/24 (87.5%)
- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether the question warrants qualitative or mixed-method evidence about how students interpret feedback.
- Search response: add search string ("AI feedback" OR "automated feedback") AND ("student interpretation" OR "feedback literacy" OR interview OR qualitative).

DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
- Dimension: geographic distribution
- Concentration: North America / Western Europe = 18/20 (90%)
- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether institutional context changes feedback uptake.
- Search response: add regional database search for Taiwan, East Asia, and bilingual higher-education studies.

Boundary: the bibliography is still valid. The advisory asks whether the corpus distribution matches the RQ; it does not reject the search or force expansion.

Source: SKILL.md on GitHub

No alerts1d5 checks · Risk SAFE
  • Gen Agent Trust Hub1d

    The deep-research skill is a highly sophisticated research orchestration system that includes robust internal security instructions to prevent prompt injection from untrusted data. It leverages well-known scholarly APIs for data verification and uses local scripts for deterministic validation of research artifacts.

  • Socket1d

    No alerts

  • Snyk1d

    Risk: LOW · No issues

  • Runlayer6mo

    7/41 files flagged

  • ZeroLeaks5mo

    Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

Signed by skilld at c5c1b45. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 1 hour ago.

Activeupdated 2 days ago
Other metadata
metadata
{
  "version": "2.12.1",
  "last_updated": "2026-08-15",
  "status": "active",
  "data_access_level": "raw",
  "task_type": "open-ended",
  "related_skills": [
    "academic-paper",
    "academic-pipeline"
  ]
}

README badge

README badge for imbad0202/academic-research-skills/deep-research