All skills
imbad0202 avatar

/deep-research

@0d17790

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.

examplessystematic_review.md

≈2k tokens on demand. Your agent reads this file only when SKILL.md points to it.

Example: Systematic Literature Review (lit-review mode)

User Request

Literature review on the effectiveness of micro-credentials in professional development

Mode: lit-review (bibliography_agent + source_verification_agent + synthesis_agent)

bibliography_agent Output

Search Strategy

Databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, ProQuest Education Keywords:

  • Primary: "micro-credentials" OR "micro-certifications" OR "digital badges" OR "stackable credentials"
  • Combined with: "professional development" OR "workforce development" OR "continuing education" OR "upskilling"
  • Filters: 2018-2025, English, peer-reviewed + selected grey literature

PRISMA Flow:

Records identified: 1,243
├── Scopus: 412
├── Web of Science: 389
├── ERIC: 287
└── ProQuest: 155

Duplicates removed: 318
Records screened (title/abstract): 925
Records excluded: 791
  - Not about micro-credentials: 423
  - Not professional development context: 198
  - Opinion/editorial only: 102
  - Non-English: 68
Full-text articles assessed: 134
Full-text excluded: 96
  - Insufficient methodology description: 41
  - Focus on K-12 not HE/professional: 32
  - Duplicate dataset: 14
  - Unable to access full text: 9
Studies included in synthesis: 38

Annotated Bibliography (Selected entries)

  1. Kato, S., Galan-Muros, V., & Weko, T. (2020). The emergence of alternative credentials. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 216. https://doi.org/10.1787/b741f39e-en

    • Relevance: Comprehensive OECD policy analysis of alternative credentials ecosystem
    • Key Findings: Micro-credentials gaining traction across OECD but lack standardization; quality assurance is critical challenge
    • Methodology: Policy analysis with cross-country comparison
    • Quality: Level VII (policy report) but high institutional credibility
  2. Ralston, S. J. (2021). Higher education's micro-credentialing craze: A postdigital-Deweyan critique. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(1), 83-101.

    • Relevance: Critical perspective on micro-credential movement
    • Key Findings: Warns of commodification of learning; micro-credentials risk reducing education to narrow skills training
    • Quality: Level VII (philosophical/critical analysis)
    • Contribution: Important counterpoint to dominant positive narrative
  3. Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2021). Analysing micro-credentials in higher education: A Bernsteinian analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(2), 212-228.

    • Relevance: Theoretical framework for understanding micro-credential design
    • Key Findings: Micro-credentials risk "segmentalist" approach to knowledge; need to be embedded in coherent curricula
    • Quality: Level VI (theoretical analysis with empirical illustration)

[... 35 more sources ...]

source_verification_agent Output

Source Quality Matrix

Grade Count %
A 5 13%
B 14 37%
C 12 32%
D 6 16%
F 1 3%

Flagged:

  • Source #22: Predatory journal indicator (rapid acceptance, no editorial board listed) -> Excluded
  • Source #31: Author is CEO of micro-credential platform -> COI noted, included with caveat
  • Sources #8, #15, #29: Pre-2020 data may not reflect post-pandemic acceleration -> Currency caveat

Final included: 37 sources (1 excluded for quality)

synthesis_agent Output

Literature Matrix (Condensed)

Theme Sources For Sources Against Contested Strength
Employer recognition improving 8 3 2 Moderate
Learner completion rates high 6 4 1 Contested
QA frameworks inadequate 12 1 0 Strong
Equity benefits 9 5 3 Contested
Skills-job alignment 11 2 1 Moderate-Strong

Synthesis Narrative

Theme 1: Quality Assurance Frameworks Are Lagging (Strong evidence) The strongest finding across the literature is that existing QA frameworks were not designed for micro-credentials. Twelve of 37 sources address this theme, with near-universal agreement that current accreditation models — designed for degree programs — do not map well onto short-form, competency-based credentials (Kato et al., 2020; Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). The European approach through the European MOOC Consortium has made progress on a common framework (Witthaus et al., 2016), but adoption remains uneven. Several authors argue that without robust QA, the micro-credential ecosystem risks becoming a "Wild West" of unverified claims (Ralston, 2021).

Theme 2: Skills-Job Alignment Shows Promise (Moderate-Strong) Evidence suggests micro-credentials improve skills-job matching, particularly in technology and healthcare sectors. Employer surveys consistently report higher satisfaction with candidates who hold relevant micro-credentials alongside degrees (Brown & Kurzweil, 2023). However, alignment depends heavily on industry involvement in credential design — credentials developed without employer input show weaker labor market outcomes (Weise, 2020).

Theme 3: Equity Outcomes Are Contested (Contested) The literature is split on whether micro-credentials improve or worsen educational equity. Proponents cite lower cost, flexible scheduling, and targeted skills development as benefits for underserved populations (Fishman et al., 2023). Critics counter that micro-credentials may create a two-tier system where disadvantaged learners receive "credential fragments" while privileged learners pursue full degrees (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). The resolution appears context-dependent: when micro-credentials are stackable toward degrees, equity benefits are stronger; when they serve as standalone alternatives, stratification risks increase.

Theme 4: Employer Recognition Is Growing but Uneven (Moderate) Employer recognition of micro-credentials has increased significantly since 2020, driven partly by pandemic-accelerated digital transformation. However, recognition varies dramatically by industry, region, and credential provider. Technology sector employers show highest acceptance (78% in recent surveys), while traditional sectors like law and finance remain skeptical (under 30%) (Digital Promise, 2024).

Theme 5: Completion and Engagement Patterns Vary (Contested) Completion rates for micro-credential programs range from 25% to 85% depending on program design, support structures, and learner demographics. Self-paced online formats show lowest completion (25-40%), while cohort-based blended models achieve highest rates (70-85%). Importantly, several studies note that "completion" may not be the right metric — some learners achieve their goals by completing specific modules without finishing the full credential (Reich & Ruiperez-Valiente, 2019).

Knowledge Gaps

  1. Longitudinal outcomes: No studies tracking micro-credential holders beyond 3 years
  2. Non-English contexts: 89% of studies from English-speaking countries
  3. Cost-effectiveness: No rigorous cost-benefit analyses found
  4. Stacking behavior: Limited evidence on how learners combine micro-credentials over time

Contradictions

Claim A Claim B Assessment
Micro-credentials democratize access (9 sources) Micro-credentials widen digital divide (5 sources) Context-dependent: depends on infrastructure, digital literacy, and cost
High completion rates (6 sources) Low completion for disadvantaged learners (4 sources) Population-dependent: completion varies significantly by demographic

Final Output

  • Annotated bibliography: 37 sources in APA 7.0
  • Literature matrix: 5 themes x 37 sources
  • Synthesis narrative: ~3,200 words
  • 4 knowledge gaps identified
  • 2 major contradictions analyzed
  • Evidence strength assessment per theme

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 0d17790. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 2 days 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