<< All versions

Skill v1.0.0

currentAutomated scan100/100
matyasstoch/david-skills/research-prompt
──Details
PublishedOctober 21, 2026 at 07:14 AM
Content Hashsha256:0e80491cfd81d02d...
Git SHA9628c8b6a1b2
──Files
Files (1 file, 2.9 KB)
SKILL.md2.9 KBactive
SKILL.md · 37 lines · 2.9 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: research-prompt description: Write a single-paragraph Deep Research prompt to hand to a human researcher (or a deep-research AI). Use when the user wants a research brief, a "deep research prompt", a one-paragraph task for a researcher, or asks "what should our researcher look for". Produces ONE tight paragraph with full context, numbered sub-questions, and per-finding output format.


Research Prompt

Goal: turn a vague research need into ONE self-contained paragraph the researcher can act on with zero back-and-forth.

Rules

  • One paragraph. No headers, no bullet list in the deliverable.
  • Prompt the job, not the topic. Give search handles (timeframe, ranking, source type, decision logic) — not just a subject.
  • Lead with the goal + decision. First sentence = the single question the research must answer and the decision/use it informs.
  • Embed all context. Names, dates, product, prior known facts, constraints. The researcher must not need to ask anything or guess.
  • Number the sub-questions inline (1, 2, 3…) so coverage is explicit. Keep to 3–6. One mission per prompt — don't cram unrelated questions.
  • State constraints. What to include, what to avoid (e.g. "only non-Chinese competitors", "no marketing fluff").
  • Source hierarchy. Prefer primary sources (official docs, GitHub, papers, filings, changelogs); forums/X/Reddit are weak signal only, never factual proof.
  • Contradiction handling. If sources conflict, separate confirmed facts / inference / unresolved uncertainty — don't force fake consensus. Flag low-confidence claims for verification.
  • Constrain output hard, method loosely. Be strict on the deliverable; leave the search path flexible so the researcher can explore.
  • Demand a fixed output per finding: source link + specific claim + one-line "why it matters / why a viewer should care".
  • Verifiable, citable facts only. No opinions.
  • Last sentence: instruct them to output everything into a single detailed markdown file.

Process

  1. Pull context from the relevant project files / conversation (dates, names, known facts, audience, end use).
  2. Identify the ONE question the research answers.
  3. Draft 3–6 numbered sub-questions that fully cover it.
  4. Add include/avoid constraints + the per-finding output format.
  5. Compress to one clean paragraph. Cut filler.

Template

Research [TOPIC + key identifying facts] to answer one question: [THE QUESTION] — for [DECISION / END USE]. Find: (1) …; (2) …; (3) …; (4) …. [Constraints: include X, avoid Y.] Prefer primary sources; treat forums/social as weak signal only; if sources conflict, separate fact from inference and flag what needs verification. For each point, give the source link, the specific claim, and a one-line "why it matters". No marketing fluff — verifiable, citable facts only. Output everything into a single detailed markdown file.
All versions