初始化提交

crates/openfang-hands/bundled/researcher/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+---
+name: researcher-hand-skill
+version: "1.0.0"
+description: "Expert knowledge for AI deep research — methodology, source evaluation, search optimization, cross-referencing, synthesis, and citation formats"
+runtime: prompt_only
+---
+
+# Deep Research Expert Knowledge
+
+## Research Methodology
+
+### Research Process (5 phases)
+1. **Define**: Clarify the question, identify what's known vs unknown, set scope
+2. **Search**: Systematic multi-strategy search across diverse sources
+3. **Evaluate**: Assess source quality, extract relevant data, note limitations
+4. **Synthesize**: Combine findings into coherent answer, resolve contradictions
+5. **Verify**: Cross-check critical claims, identify remaining uncertainties
+
+### Question Types & Strategies
+| Question Type | Strategy | Example |
+|--------------|----------|---------|
+| Factual | Find authoritative primary source | "What is the population of Tokyo?" |
+| Comparative | Multi-source balanced analysis | "React vs Vue for large apps?" |
+| Causal | Evidence chain + counterfactuals | "Why did Theranos fail?" |
+| Predictive | Trend analysis + expert consensus | "Will quantum computing replace classical?" |
+| How-to | Step-by-step from practitioners | "How to set up a Kubernetes cluster?" |
+| Survey | Comprehensive landscape mapping | "What are the options for vector databases?" |
+| Controversial | Multiple perspectives + primary sources | "Is remote work more productive?" |
+
+### Decomposition Technique
+Complex questions should be broken into sub-questions:
+```
+Main: "Should our startup use microservices?"
+Sub-questions:
+  1. What are microservices? (definitional)
+  2. What are the benefits vs monolith? (comparative)
+  3. What team size/stage is appropriate? (contextual)
+  4. What are the operational costs? (factual)
+  5. What do similar startups use? (case studies)
+  6. What are the migration paths? (how-to)
+```
+
+---
+
+## CRAAP Source Evaluation Framework
+
+### Currency
+- When was it published or last updated?
+- Is the information still current for the topic?
+- Are the links functional?
+- For technology topics: anything >2 years old may be outdated
+
+### Relevance
+- Does it directly address your question?
+- Who is the intended audience?
+- Is the level of detail appropriate?
+- Would you cite this in your report?
+
+### Authority
+- Who is the author? What are their credentials?
+- What institution published this?
+- Is there contact information?
+- Does the URL domain indicate authority? (.gov, .edu, reputable org)
+
+### Accuracy
+- Is the information supported by evidence?
+- Has it been reviewed or refereed?
+- Can you verify the claims from other sources?
+- Are there factual errors, typos, or broken logic?
+
+### Purpose
+- Why does this information exist?
+- Is it informational, commercial, persuasive, or entertainment?
+- Is the bias clear or hidden?
+- Does the author/organization benefit from you believing this?
+
+### Scoring
+```
+A (Authoritative):  Passes all 5 CRAAP criteria
+B (Reliable):       Passes 4/5, minor concern on one
+C (Useful):         Passes 3/5, use with caveats
+D (Weak):           Passes 2/5 or fewer
+F (Unreliable):     Fails most criteria, do not cite
+```
+
+---
+
+## Search Query Optimization
+
+### Query Construction Techniques
+
+**Exact phrase**: `"specific phrase"` — use for names, quotes, error messages
+**Site-specific**: `site:domain.com query` — search within a specific site
+**Exclude**: `query -unwanted_term` — remove irrelevant results
+**File type**: `filetype:pdf query` — find specific document types
+**Recency**: `query after:2024-01-01` — recent results only
+**OR operator**: `query (option1 OR option2)` — broaden search
+**Wildcard**: `"how to * in python"` — fill-in-the-blank
+
+### Multi-Strategy Search Pattern
+For each research question, use at least 3 search strategies:
+1. **Direct**: The question as-is
+2. **Authoritative**: `site:gov OR site:edu OR site:org [topic]`
+3. **Academic**: `[topic] research paper [year]` or `site:arxiv.org [topic]`
+4. **Practical**: `[topic] guide` or `[topic] tutorial` or `[topic] how to`
+5. **Data**: `[topic] statistics` or `[topic] data [year]`
+6. **Contrarian**: `[topic] criticism` or `[topic] problems` or `[topic] myths`
+
+### Source Discovery by Domain
+| Domain | Best Sources | Search Pattern |
+|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| Technology | Official docs, GitHub, Stack Overflow, engineering blogs | `[tech] documentation`, `site:github.com [tech]` |
+| Science | PubMed, arXiv, Nature, Science | `site:arxiv.org [topic]`, `[topic] systematic review` |
+| Business | SEC filings, industry reports, HBR | `[company] 10-K`, `[industry] report [year]` |
+| Medicine | PubMed, WHO, CDC, Cochrane | `site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [topic]` |
+| Legal | Court records, law reviews, statute databases | `[case] ruling`, `[law] analysis` |
+| Statistics | Census, BLS, World Bank, OECD | `site:data.worldbank.org [metric]` |
+| Current events | Reuters, AP, BBC, primary sources | `[event] statement`, `[event] official` |
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Referencing Techniques
+
+### Verification Levels
+```
+Level 1: Single source (unverified)
+  → Mark as "reported by [source]"
+
+Level 2: Two independent sources agree (corroborated)
+  → Mark as "confirmed by multiple sources"
+
+Level 3: Primary source + secondary confirmation (verified)
+  → Mark as "verified — primary source: [X]"
+
+Level 4: Expert consensus (well-established)
+  → Mark as "widely accepted" or "scientific consensus"
+```
+
+### Contradiction Resolution
+When sources disagree:
+1. Check which source is more authoritative (CRAAP scores)
+2. Check which is more recent (newer may have updated info)
+3. Check if they're measuring different things (apples vs oranges)
+4. Check for known biases or conflicts of interest
+5. Present both views with evidence for each
+6. State which view the evidence better supports (if clear)
+7. If genuinely uncertain, say so — don't force a conclusion
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis Patterns
+
+### Narrative Synthesis
+```
+The evidence suggests [main finding].
+
+[Source A] found that [finding 1], which is consistent with
+[Source B]'s observation that [finding 2]. However, [Source C]
+presents a contrasting view: [finding 3].
+
+The weight of evidence favors [conclusion] because [reasoning].
+A key limitation is [gap or uncertainty].
+```
+
+### Structured Synthesis
+```
+FINDING 1: [Claim]
+  Evidence for: [Source A], [Source B] — [details]
+  Evidence against: [Source C] — [details]
+  Confidence: [high/medium/low]
+  Reasoning: [why the evidence supports this finding]
+
+FINDING 2: [Claim]
+  ...
+```
+
+### Gap Analysis
+After synthesis, explicitly note:
+- What questions remain unanswered?
+- What data would strengthen the conclusions?
+- What are the limitations of the available sources?
+- What follow-up research would be valuable?
+
+---
+
+## Citation Formats
+
+### Inline URL
+```
+According to a 2024 study (https://example.com/study), the effect was significant.
+```
+
+### Footnotes
+```
+According to a 2024 study[1], the effect was significant.
+
+---
+[1] https://example.com/study — "Title of Study" by Author, Published Date
+```
+
+### Academic (APA)
+```
+In-text: (Smith, 2024)
+Reference: Smith, J. (2024). Title of the article. *Journal Name*, 42(3), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.xxxx
+```
+
+For web sources (APA):
+```
+Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://url
+```
+
+### Numbered References
+```
+According to recent research [1], the finding was confirmed by independent analysis [2].
+
+## References
+1. Author (Year). Title. URL
+2. Author (Year). Title. URL
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output Templates
+
+### Brief Report
+```markdown
+# [Question]
+**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Sources**: N | **Confidence**: high/medium/low
+
+## Answer
+[2-3 paragraph direct answer]
+
+## Key Evidence
+- [Finding 1] — [source]
+- [Finding 2] — [source]
+- [Finding 3] — [source]
+
+## Caveats
+- [Limitation or uncertainty]
+
+## Sources
+1. [Source](url)
+2. [Source](url)
+```
+
+### Detailed Report
+```markdown
+# Research Report: [Question]
+**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Depth**: thorough | **Sources Consulted**: N
+
+## Executive Summary
+[1 paragraph synthesis]
+
+## Background
+[Context needed to understand the findings]
+
+## Methodology
+[How the research was conducted, what was searched, how sources were evaluated]
+
+## Findings
+
+### [Sub-question 1]
+[Detailed findings with inline citations]
+
+### [Sub-question 2]
+[Detailed findings with inline citations]
+
+## Analysis
+[Synthesis across findings, patterns identified, implications]
+
+## Contradictions & Open Questions
+[Areas of disagreement, gaps in knowledge]
+
+## Confidence Assessment
+[Overall confidence level with reasoning]
+
+## Sources
+[Full bibliography in chosen citation format]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Bias in Research
+
+Be aware of these biases during research:
+
+1. **Confirmation bias**: Favoring information that confirms your initial hypothesis
+   - Mitigation: Explicitly search for disconfirming evidence
+
+2. **Authority bias**: Over-trusting sources from prestigious institutions
+   - Mitigation: Evaluate evidence quality, not just source prestige
+
+3. **Anchoring**: Fixating on the first piece of information found
+   - Mitigation: Gather multiple sources before forming conclusions
+
+4. **Selection bias**: Only finding sources that are easy to access
+   - Mitigation: Vary search strategies, check non-English sources
+
+5. **Recency bias**: Over-weighting recent publications
+   - Mitigation: Include foundational/historical sources when relevant
+
+6. **Framing effect**: Being influenced by how information is presented
+   - Mitigation: Look at raw data, not just interpretations
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Research Tips
+
+### Technology Research
+- Always check the official documentation first
+- Compare documentation version with the latest release
+- Stack Overflow answers may be outdated — check the date
+- GitHub issues/discussions often have the most current information
+- Benchmarks without methodology descriptions are unreliable
+
+### Business Research
+- SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q) are the most reliable public company data
+- Press releases are marketing — verify claims independently
+- Analyst reports may have conflicts of interest — check disclaimers
+- Employee reviews (Glassdoor) provide internal perspective but are biased
+
+### Scientific Research
+- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are strongest evidence
+- Single studies should not be treated as definitive
+- Check if findings have been replicated
+- Preprints have not been peer-reviewed — note this caveat
+- p-values and effect sizes both matter — not just "statistically significant"