Skill: orzmicke-coder/chaoxiresearchskill (version 1.0.0)

--- name: deep-research-framework description: > This skill should be used when the user requests a structured, in-depth research on a specific topic, industry, technology, product, market, person, organization, or any domain-specific subject. Trigger phrases include: "深度调研", "帮我研究一下", "做一份调研报告", "分析一下XX行业/市场/技术", "写一份研究报告", "deep research", "research report", "调研", "研究报告", "行业报告", "竞品分析", "market research", "技术调研", "可行性分析", "尽职调查". This skill guides a rigorous, multi-source, evidence-balanced research process that: - Defines research audience and objectives before starting - Decomposes the topic into structured dimensions - Gathers evidence from multiple sources with credibility ratings - Includes counterevidence and conflicting viewpoints - Flags information gaps honestly instead of fabricating - Delivers a structured report plus a one-page summary card --- # Deep Research Framework A structured deep-research skill for producing rigorous, balanced, and actionable research reports on any topic. ## Overview This skill enforces a disciplined research methodology. It is NOT a simple "search and summarize" tool. It demands evidence quality control, counterevidence inclusion, and honest flagging of gaps. Outputs: 1. **Structured Research Report** — full-depth analysis organized by dimensions 2. **One-Page Summary Card** — key findings, confidence levels, and action items ## Phase 0 — Pre-Research Clarification Before starting research, confirm these inputs from the user or infer them from context: | Input | Required | Default if absent | |-------|----------|-------------------| | Research topic | Yes | — | | Target audience | Recommended | "decision maker / general professional" | | Key dimensions to focus on | Optional | Use standard dimension set (see references) | | Time scope | Optional | "recent 1–3 years unless specified" | | Depth level | Optional | "standard" (balanced breadth and depth) | If the topic is ambiguous, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding. ## Phase 1 — Research Design ### 1.1 Define the Research Objective State in 1–2 sentences: What question is this research answering, and what decision or understanding will it enable? ### 1.2 Define the Audience State who will read this: their background, what they already know, and what they need to walk away with. ### 1.3 Scope and Constraints - Time scope: Which period does the research cover? - Geographic scope: Global? China? Specific region? - Exclusions: What is explicitly out of scope? ### 1.4 Decompose into Research Dimensions Break the topic into 4–7 dimensions. For each dimension: - Write 2–4 key questions that need answering - Assign a priority: Core / Supporting / Context Use `references/dimension-templates.md` for standard dimension sets by research type (industry, technology, company, product, market). ## Phase 2 — Multi-Source Research Execution ### 2.1 Source Strategy For each dimension, gather from at least 2–3 distinct source types: | Source Type | Examples | Default Credibility | |-------------|----------|---------------------| | Primary data | Official reports, regulatory filings, academic papers | ★★★★★ | | Industry reports | McKinsey, Gartner, IDC, CB Insights, Frost & Sullivan | ★★★★ | | News & media | Reuters, Bloomberg, FT, 36kr, 财新, 虎嗅 | ★★★ | | Expert commentary | Interviews, conference talks, analyst notes | ★★★ | | Community & forums | Reddit, Zhihu, GitHub Issues, industry forums | ★★ | | AI-generated synthesis | LLM summaries without cited sources | ★ | See `references/credibility-rubric.md` for detailed credibility rating rules. ### 2.2 Search Execution For each research dimension: 1. Formulate targeted search queries (try multiple angles) 2. Retrieve results using web_search or available tools 3. For each piece of evidence, record: claim, source, credibility rating, date ### 2.3 Counterevidence Requirement (MANDATORY) For every major claim in the report, actively search for contradicting evidence: - If counterevidence exists: include it alongside the main claim, labeled `[反面证据]` - If no counterevidence found: note `[未发现明显反面证据，可信度待验]` - NEVER omit counterevidence to make the report cleaner or more conclusive ### 2.4 Conflicting Information Handling When two credible sources contradict each other: - Present BOTH positions side-by-side - Note the source, date, and credibility of each - Do NOT pick a side unless evidence weight is clearly asymmetric - Label the conflict: `[矛盾信息 — 并列呈现]` ### 2.5 Information Gap Flagging (MANDATORY) When a key question cannot be answered from available sources: - Mark it clearly: `[信息不足 — 无法得出可靠结论]` - State what type of source would be needed to fill the gap - NEVER fabricate data, statistics, or citations to fill gaps ## Phase 3 — Synthesis and Analysis ### 3.1 Evidence Weighting Synthesize findings dimension by dimension: - Higher-credibility sources take precedence - Recent data (within 12 months) takes precedence over older data - Consensus across multiple independent sources strengthens confidence ### 3.2 Insight Generation Go beyond summarizing to identify: - Key patterns and trends - Surprising or counterintuitive findings - Implications for the research objective - Open questions that remain after research ### 3.3 Confidence Levels Assign a confidence level to each major finding: | Level | Meaning | |-------|---------| | 高 (High) | Multiple independent ★★★★+ sources agree | | 中 (Medium) | Some evidence, limited cross-validation | | 低 (Low) | Single source, low credibility, or conflicting signals | | 未知 (Unknown) | Insufficient data, explicitly flagged | ## Phase 4 — Output Delivery ### 4.1 Full Research Report Follow the template in `assets/report-template.md`. Structure: 1. **研究概览** — objective, audience, scope, date 2. **执行摘要** — 5–7 bullet key findings with confidence levels 3. **维度分析** — one section per dimension with: - Key findings - Supporting evidence (with source + credibility) - Counterevidence - Confidence level - Information gaps (if any) 4. **矛盾与争议** — consolidated list of conflicting information 5. **综合洞察** — cross-dimension synthesis and implications 6. **信息缺口清单** — all flagged gaps in one place 7. **参考资料** — all sources with credibility ratings ### 4.2 One-Page Summary Card Follow the template in `assets/summary-card-template.md`. Deliver after the full report. The card contains: - Topic + audience + date (header) - 3 most important findings (with confidence) - 1 most important counterpoint - 1 key uncertainty / gap - Suggested next actions (if applicable) - Overall research confidence score (High / Medium / Low) ## Quality Checklist (self-check before delivery) Before presenting the output, verify: - [ ] Every major claim has a cited source with credibility rating - [ ] Counterevidence section is non-empty or explicitly noted - [ ] All conflicting information is presented side-by-side, not resolved by choosing one - [ ] All information gaps are explicitly labeled - [ ] No statistics or citations were fabricated - [ ] Confidence levels are assigned to all major findings - [ ] One-page summary card is included - [ ] Report follows the template structure ## Important Rules 1. **No fabrication**: If data doesn't exist, say so. Never invent statistics, quotes, or citations. 2. **No false certainty**: Do not present uncertain findings as definitive. 3. **Counterevidence is mandatory**: A report without counterevidence is incomplete. 4. **Conflicting sources must coexist**: Do not silently pick one side. 5. **Credibility must be visible**: Every claim should be traceable to a rated source.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)