Skip to content
Back to skills

Wiki Research Research

ASecurity

Daily research agent for #research queue items — papers, concepts, authors. Runs the 5-step research loop with deeper source-finding and an Open Questions section.

  • 8 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 6, 2026
researchgo

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 6, 2026

npx -y skills add v1truv1us/ai-eng-system --skill wiki-research-research --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Wiki Research Research?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Wiki Research Research
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/v1truv1us-wiki-research-research/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/v1truv1us-wiki-research-research)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: wiki-research-research
description: Daily research agent for #research queue items — papers, concepts, authors. Runs the 5-step research loop with deeper source-finding and an Open Questions section.
---

# Wiki Research: Research

Process `#research` items from the queue — papers, academic concepts, authors, ideas worth deep-diving. Uses the 5-step loop with stricter source-finding than engineering.

## Vault location
`/app/data/vault/`

## When to skip the loop
If the topic is a single paper you only need to summarise, do one `web_search` (engine `brave`) for the paper, run `intelli_extract` on the abstract page, write a one-paragraph page with citation, stop. The full loop is for concepts, debates, bodies of work.

## The 5-step loop

Each step has a gate. Do not advance until the gate is met.

### 1 — Define

Before searching, write three sentences:
- **Assumption:** what you currently believe is true about this concept / paper / author
- **Unknown:** the specific thing you don't know yet, as a question with a verifiable answer
- **Answer shape:** what a good answer looks like (a summary, a comparison with prior work, a critique, a position in a debate)

**Gate:** a reader could tell whether your output answered it.

### 2 — Triage

Identify the 2–4 source types most likely to answer. For research topics, priority order:

1. The paper itself (arXiv, publisher page, author PDF) — use `web_search` to find it, then `intelli_extract` on the abstract / introduction / results
2. Author's own page, lab page, talks, blog
3. Peer papers — critiques, extensions, follow-on work (search `<paper title>` + "follow-up" / "critique" / "reply")
4. Surveys / textbooks that cite it (search `<concept>` + "survey" or "lecture notes")
5. Adjacent vault pages (`wiki/index.md`)

Run 3–4 Brave queries. For each promising URL, use `intelli_extract` with a `focusPrompt` naming the specific Unknown.

**Gate:** you can name 3+ source URLs you will cite before writing the page.

### 3 — Query

Pull the answer from the triaged sources. For research topics specifically:

- For a paper: capture abstract, key contributions, methodology, results, reception (citations, awards), criticisms
- For an author: capture background, key work, current focus, collaborators, intellectual lineage
- For a concept: capture definition, origin, formal statement, what it solves, what it doesn't solve, related concepts

**Gate:** every claim has at least one source URL attached.

### 4 — Verify

For every claim, assign one tier:
- **FACT** — directly stated in a source, with citation
- **LIKELY** — consistent with sources but inferred or synthesised
- **SPECULATIVE** — your reasoning beyond what sources support
- **UNKNOWN** — neither you nor the sources say

For any claim about the paper's reception or impact, run a second `web_search` to corroborate. Citation counts, awards, and critiques are easy to get wrong.

**Gate:** every claim has a tier.

### 5 — Report

Write the wiki page. Append a Limitations section and an Open Questions section.

## Wiki page format

```markdown
---
tags: [#research]
last_researched: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# <Title>

> One-sentence summary.

## Define
- **Assumption:** ...
- **Unknown:** ...
- **Answer shape:** ...

## Findings

### Background
- **FACT:** <claim> [^1]

### Key contributions
- **FACT:** <claim> [^1]
- **FACT:** <claim> [^2]

### Reception / critiques
- **LIKELY:** <claim> [^2, 3]

### Current status
- **LIKELY:** <claim>

## Open Questions
- Things the research surfaced but did not resolve
- Productive follow-up directions

## Limitations
- What the sources did not cover
- Which claims were not independently verified
- What would change the answer

## Sources
[^1]: <url> — accessed YYYY-MM-DD
[^2]: <url> — accessed YYYY-MM-DD
```

## Per-run workflow

1. Read `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md` in the vault root.
2. Find all unchecked items (`- [ ]`) under `## #research`. If none (or only placeholder), stop.
3. For each real unchecked item, run the 5-step loop.
4. Check `wiki/index.md` for an existing page. Update if found; otherwise create `wiki/research/<slug>.md`.
5. Update `wiki/index.md`.
6. Mark done in `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md`: `- [x]` + ` — researched YYYY-MM-DD`.
7. Move `[x]` items to `## Archive`.
8. Append entry to `wiki/log.md`:
   ```
   ## [YYYY-MM-DD] ingest | research-queue #research | <topics> → <pages>
   ```

## Rules
- Never edit `raw/`, `Openclaw articles/`, or `personal stuff/`.
- Only write to `wiki/` and `RESEARCH_QUEUE.md`.
- Include an Open Questions section — what the research surfaced but didn't resolve.
- If a topic is too vague, mark `[x]` with `— skipped: too vague, clarify topic`.
- Today's date comes from system context.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…