254 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
254 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: deep-research
|
|
description: |
|
|
Use when conducting in-depth research, gathering sources, writing research summaries with citations,
|
|
or analyzing topics from multiple perspectives where evidence quality and synthesis matter.
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
metadata:
|
|
author: awesome-llm-apps
|
|
version: "1.1.0"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Deep Research
|
|
|
|
Use dedicated research subagent when available. Keep parent session focused on scope, delegation, and final synthesis.
|
|
|
|
## When to Apply
|
|
|
|
Use this skill when:
|
|
- Conducting in-depth research on a topic
|
|
- Synthesizing information from multiple sources
|
|
- Creating research summaries with proper citations
|
|
- Analyzing different viewpoints and perspectives
|
|
- Identifying key findings and trends
|
|
- Evaluating the quality and credibility of sources
|
|
|
|
## Execution Pattern
|
|
|
|
**Subagent-first:** If subagent dispatch is available and a `researcher` subagent exists, delegate research work to it. If the platform only supports generic subagents, dispatch a fresh research-focused subagent with equivalent instructions.
|
|
|
|
Why:
|
|
- preserves parent session context
|
|
- gives research work isolated scope
|
|
- makes source gathering and synthesis repeatable
|
|
|
|
**Fallback:** If subagents are unavailable, follow the same workflow in the current session.
|
|
|
|
### Delegation Checklist
|
|
|
|
Before dispatch:
|
|
- Clarify scope if the request is ambiguous
|
|
- Write concrete coverage requirements; do not send vague prompts
|
|
- Include citation, source-quality, and uncertainty rules
|
|
- Include exact output sections required from the subagent
|
|
|
|
### Researcher Handoff Template
|
|
|
|
Send a self-contained task. Do not make the subagent infer missing requirements.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Research topic: {QUESTION}
|
|
Purpose/context: {PURPOSE}
|
|
|
|
Requirements — Detailed Analysis must cover:
|
|
- {ANGLE_OR_SUBTOPIC_1}
|
|
- {ANGLE_OR_SUBTOPIC_2}
|
|
- {ANGLE_OR_SUBTOPIC_3}
|
|
|
|
Constraints:
|
|
- Use numbered citations [1], [2] for every external claim
|
|
- Prefer peer-reviewed papers, official reports, and primary sources when available
|
|
- Flag company claims, news summaries, and weak evidence as lower-confidence
|
|
- Call out uncertainty, disagreement, and evidence gaps explicitly
|
|
- Research only; do not modify files
|
|
|
|
Output sections:
|
|
- Executive Summary
|
|
- Key Findings
|
|
- Detailed Analysis
|
|
- Areas of Consensus
|
|
- Areas of Debate
|
|
- Sources
|
|
- Gaps and Further Research
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### After Subagent Returns
|
|
|
|
- Check that claims are cited and scope is covered
|
|
- Spot-check weak or surprising claims against sources
|
|
- Present the final answer in the requested depth
|
|
- Preserve uncertainty and debate where the evidence is mixed
|
|
|
|
## Research Process
|
|
|
|
Follow this systematic approach:
|
|
|
|
### 1. **Clarify the Research Question**
|
|
- What exactly needs to be researched?
|
|
- What level of detail is required?
|
|
- Are there specific angles to prioritize?
|
|
- What is the purpose of the research?
|
|
|
|
### 2. **Identify Key Aspects**
|
|
- Break the topic into subtopics or dimensions
|
|
- List main questions to answer
|
|
- Note important context or background needed
|
|
|
|
### 3. **Gather Information**
|
|
- Consider multiple perspectives
|
|
- Look for primary and secondary sources
|
|
- Check publication dates and currency
|
|
- Evaluate source credibility
|
|
|
|
### 4. **Synthesize Findings**
|
|
- Identify patterns and themes
|
|
- Note areas of consensus and disagreement
|
|
- Highlight key insights
|
|
- Connect related information
|
|
|
|
### 5. **Document Sources**
|
|
- Use numbered citations [1], [2], etc.
|
|
- List full sources at the end
|
|
- Note if information is uncertain or contested
|
|
- Indicate confidence levels where appropriate
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
Structure your research as:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
[2-3 sentence overview of key findings]
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings
|
|
- **[Finding 1]**: [Brief explanation] [1]
|
|
- **[Finding 2]**: [Brief explanation] [2]
|
|
- **[Finding 3]**: [Brief explanation] [3]
|
|
|
|
## Detailed Analysis
|
|
|
|
### [Subtopic 1]
|
|
[In-depth analysis with citations]
|
|
|
|
### [Subtopic 2]
|
|
[In-depth analysis with citations]
|
|
|
|
## Areas of Consensus
|
|
[What sources agree on]
|
|
|
|
## Areas of Debate
|
|
[Where sources disagree or uncertainty exists]
|
|
|
|
## Sources
|
|
[1] [Full citation with credibility note]
|
|
[2] [Full citation with credibility note]
|
|
|
|
## Gaps and Further Research
|
|
[What's still unknown or needs investigation]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Source Evaluation Criteria
|
|
|
|
When citing sources, note:
|
|
|
|
- **Peer-reviewed journals** - Highest credibility
|
|
- **Official reports/statistics** - Authoritative data
|
|
- **News from reputable outlets** - Timely, fact-checked
|
|
- **Expert commentary** - Qualified opinions
|
|
- **General websites** - verify independently
|
|
|
|
## Common Mistakes
|
|
|
|
- **Vague delegation** - "Research X" is too loose; include must-cover dimensions and output sections
|
|
- **Missing citation rules** - Require citations for every external claim, not just the final bullet or paragraph
|
|
- **Missing source hierarchy** - State preferred source types so lower-credibility material is labeled correctly
|
|
- **Unqualified company claims** - Mark vendor announcements as unverified unless independent evidence supports them
|
|
|
|
## Example
|
|
|
|
**User Request:** "Research the benefits and risks of intermittent fasting"
|
|
|
|
**Response:**
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
|
|
Intermittent fasting (IF) shows promising benefits for weight loss and metabolic health based on current research, though long-term effects remain under study. Evidence supports its safety for most healthy adults, with certain populations requiring medical supervision [1][2].
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings
|
|
|
|
- **Weight Loss**: IF produces similar weight loss to calorie restriction (5-8% body weight over 12 weeks), with potentially better adherence [1]
|
|
- **Metabolic Health**: May improve insulin sensitivity by 20-31% and reduce inflammation markers [2]
|
|
- **Longevity**: Animal studies show promise; human long-term data is limited [3]
|
|
- **Safety**: Not recommended for pregnant women, diabetics without supervision, or those with eating disorder history [4]
|
|
|
|
## Detailed Analysis
|
|
|
|
### Weight Management
|
|
Studies comparing IF to traditional calorie restriction show similar weight loss outcomes. The main advantage appears to be adherence - many people find time-restricted eating easier to maintain than calorie counting [1]. Typical results show 5-8% body weight loss over 12-16 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Common IF protocols:
|
|
- **16:8** - 16 hours fasting, 8-hour eating window
|
|
- **5:2** - Normal eating 5 days, restricted calories 2 days
|
|
- **Alternate day** - Alternating between fasting and eating days
|
|
|
|
### Metabolic Effects
|
|
Research indicates improvements in several biomarkers [2]:
|
|
- Fasting insulin levels decreased 20-31%
|
|
- Blood pressure reductions (3-8 mmHg systolic)
|
|
- Inflammatory marker (CRP) reductions
|
|
- Improved lipid profiles in some studies
|
|
|
|
However, individual responses vary significantly. Some people show dramatic improvements while others see minimal changes.
|
|
|
|
### Potential Mechanisms
|
|
Several explanations for observed benefits:
|
|
1. **Caloric restriction** - IF naturally reduces total calories
|
|
2. **Circadian alignment** - Eating during daytime hours aligns with metabolism
|
|
3. **Autophagy** - Cellular cleanup processes activated during fasting
|
|
4. **Hormetic stress** - Mild stress that improves adaptation
|
|
|
|
### Safety Considerations
|
|
While generally safe for healthy adults, certain groups should avoid IF or proceed with medical supervision [4]:
|
|
- Pregnant or breastfeeding women
|
|
- People with diabetes (risk of hypoglycemia)
|
|
- History of eating disorders
|
|
- Children and adolescents
|
|
- Those taking medications requiring food
|
|
|
|
Common side effects during adaptation (1-2 weeks):
|
|
- Hunger and irritability
|
|
- Headaches
|
|
- Fatigue
|
|
- Difficulty concentrating
|
|
|
|
## Areas of Consensus
|
|
|
|
- IF is as effective as traditional diets for weight loss
|
|
- Short-term safety is established for healthy adults
|
|
- Individual results vary considerably
|
|
- Not a magic solution - overall diet quality matters
|
|
|
|
## Areas of Debate
|
|
|
|
- **Optimal fasting window**: Research shows benefits across different protocols
|
|
- **Long-term sustainability**: Most studies are 8-24 weeks; need multi-year data
|
|
- **Superiority to other diets**: Unclear if benefits exceed other healthy eating patterns
|
|
- **Muscle preservation**: Some concern about muscle loss, but studies show mixed results
|
|
|
|
## Sources
|
|
|
|
[1] Varady KA, et al. "Clinical application of intermittent fasting for weight loss." *Nature Reviews Endocrinology*, 2022. (Systematic review, high credibility)
|
|
|
|
[2] de Cabo R, Mattson MP. "Effects of Intermittent Fasting on Health, Aging, and Disease." *New England Journal of Medicine*, 2019. (Peer-reviewed, authoritative review)
|
|
|
|
[3] Longo VD, Panda S. "Fasting, Circadian Rhythms, and Time-Restricted Feeding in Healthy Lifespan." *Cell Metabolism*, 2016. (Mechanistic research, preliminary human data)
|
|
|
|
[4] Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. "Position on Intermittent Fasting." 2022. (Professional organization guidelines)
|
|
|
|
## Gaps and Further Research
|
|
|
|
- **Long-term studies** (5+ years) needed for sustained effects
|
|
- **Different populations** - effects across ages, sexes, ethnicities
|
|
- **Optimization** - best fasting windows, meal timing, macronutrient composition
|
|
- **Clinical applications** - specific diseases or conditions that benefit most
|