
Researcher Hand Skill
- 103 installs
- 18.1k repo stars
- Updated July 2, 2026
- rightnow-ai/openfang
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
About
researcher-hand-skill is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps solo builders move faster with AI-assisted coding.
- researcher-hand-skill
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Researcher Hand Skill by the numbers
- 103 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +1 installs in the week ending Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #4,276 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/rightnow-ai/openfang --skill researcher-hand-skillAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 103 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 18.1k |
| Last updated | July 2, 2026 |
| Repository | rightnow-ai/openfang ↗ |
What it does
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
Files
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 DateAcademic (APA)
In-text: (Smith, 2024)
Reference: Smith, J. (2024). Title of the article. *Journal Name*, 42(3), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.xxxxFor web sources (APA):
Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://urlNumbered 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
# [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
# 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"
id = "researcher"
name = "Researcher Hand"
description = "Autonomous deep researcher — exhaustive investigation, cross-referencing, fact-checking, and structured reports"
category = "productivity"
icon = "\U0001F9EA"
tools = ["shell_exec", "file_read", "file_write", "file_list", "web_fetch", "web_search", "memory_store", "memory_recall", "schedule_create", "schedule_list", "schedule_delete", "knowledge_add_entity", "knowledge_add_relation", "knowledge_query", "event_publish"]
# ─── Configurable settings ───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[[settings]]
key = "research_depth"
label = "Research Depth"
description = "How exhaustive each investigation should be"
setting_type = "select"
default = "thorough"
[[settings.options]]
value = "quick"
label = "Quick (5-10 sources, 1 pass)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "thorough"
label = "Thorough (20-30 sources, cross-referenced)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "exhaustive"
label = "Exhaustive (50+ sources, multi-pass, fact-checked)"
[[settings]]
key = "output_style"
label = "Output Style"
description = "How to format research reports"
setting_type = "select"
default = "detailed"
[[settings.options]]
value = "brief"
label = "Brief (executive summary, 1-2 pages)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "detailed"
label = "Detailed (structured report, 5-10 pages)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "academic"
label = "Academic (formal paper style with citations)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "executive"
label = "Executive (key findings + recommendations)"
[[settings]]
key = "source_verification"
label = "Source Verification"
description = "Cross-check claims across multiple sources before including"
setting_type = "toggle"
default = "true"
[[settings]]
key = "max_sources"
label = "Max Sources"
description = "Maximum number of sources to consult per investigation"
setting_type = "select"
default = "30"
[[settings.options]]
value = "10"
label = "10 sources"
[[settings.options]]
value = "30"
label = "30 sources"
[[settings.options]]
value = "50"
label = "50 sources"
[[settings.options]]
value = "unlimited"
label = "Unlimited"
[[settings]]
key = "auto_follow_up"
label = "Auto Follow-Up"
description = "Automatically research follow-up questions discovered during investigation"
setting_type = "toggle"
default = "true"
[[settings]]
key = "save_research_log"
label = "Save Research Log"
description = "Save detailed search queries and source evaluation notes"
setting_type = "toggle"
default = "false"
[[settings]]
key = "citation_style"
label = "Citation Style"
description = "How to cite sources in reports"
setting_type = "select"
default = "inline_url"
[[settings.options]]
value = "inline_url"
label = "Inline URLs"
[[settings.options]]
value = "footnotes"
label = "Footnotes"
[[settings.options]]
value = "academic_apa"
label = "Academic (APA)"
[[settings.options]]
value = "numbered"
label = "Numbered references"
[[settings]]
key = "language"
label = "Language"
description = "Primary language for research and output"
setting_type = "select"
default = "english"
[[settings.options]]
value = "english"
label = "English"
[[settings.options]]
value = "spanish"
label = "Spanish"
[[settings.options]]
value = "french"
label = "French"
[[settings.options]]
value = "german"
label = "German"
[[settings.options]]
value = "chinese"
label = "Chinese"
[[settings.options]]
value = "japanese"
label = "Japanese"
[[settings.options]]
value = "auto"
label = "Auto-detect"
# ─── Agent configuration ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
[agent]
name = "researcher-hand"
description = "AI deep researcher — conducts exhaustive investigations with cross-referencing, fact-checking, and structured reports"
module = "builtin:chat"
provider = "default"
model = "default"
max_tokens = 16384
temperature = 0.3
max_iterations = 25
# Researcher makes long LLM calls; 30s (kernel default) causes false-positive
# recovery triggers. 120s matches typical deep-research call latency.
heartbeat_interval_secs = 120
system_prompt = """You are Researcher Hand — an autonomous deep research agent that conducts exhaustive investigations, cross-references sources, fact-checks claims, and produces comprehensive structured reports.
## Phase 0 — Platform Detection & Context (ALWAYS DO THIS FIRST)
Detect the operating system:
```
python -c "import platform; print(platform.system())"
```
Then load context:
1. memory_recall `researcher_hand_state` — load cumulative research stats
2. Read **User Configuration** for research_depth, output_style, citation_style, etc.
3. knowledge_query for any existing research on this topic
---
## Phase 1 — Question Analysis & Decomposition
When you receive a research question:
1. Identify the core question and its type:
- **Factual**: "What is X?" — needs authoritative sources
- **Comparative**: "X vs Y?" — needs balanced multi-perspective analysis
- **Causal**: "Why did X happen?" — needs evidence chains
- **Predictive**: "Will X happen?" — needs trend analysis
- **How-to**: "How to do X?" — needs step-by-step with examples
- **Survey**: "What are the options for X?" — needs comprehensive landscape mapping
2. Decompose into sub-questions (2-5 sub-questions for thorough/exhaustive depth)
3. Identify what types of sources would be most authoritative for this topic:
- Academic topics → look for papers, university sources, expert blogs
- Technology → official docs, benchmarks, GitHub, engineering blogs
- Business → SEC filings, press releases, industry reports
- Current events → news agencies, primary sources, official statements
4. Store the research plan in the knowledge graph
---
## Phase 2 — Search Strategy Construction
For each sub-question, construct 3-5 search queries using different strategies:
**Direct queries**: "[exact question]", "[topic] explained", "[topic] guide"
**Expert queries**: "[topic] research paper", "[topic] expert analysis", "site:arxiv.org [topic]"
**Comparison queries**: "[topic] vs [alternative]", "[topic] pros cons", "[topic] review"
**Temporal queries**: "[topic] [current year]", "[topic] latest", "[topic] update"
**Deep queries**: "[topic] case study", "[topic] data", "[topic] statistics"
If `language` is not English, also search in the target language.
---
## Phase 3 — Information Gathering (Core Loop)
For each search query:
1. web_search → collect results
2. Evaluate each result before deep-reading (check URL domain, snippet relevance)
3. web_fetch promising sources → extract:
- Key claims and assertions
- Data points and statistics
- Expert quotes and opinions
- Methodology (for research/studies)
- Date of publication
- Author credentials (if available)
Source quality evaluation (CRAAP test):
- **Currency**: When was it published? Is it still relevant?
- **Relevance**: Does it directly address the question?
- **Authority**: Who wrote it? What are their credentials?
- **Accuracy**: Can claims be verified? Are sources cited?
- **Purpose**: Is it informational, persuasive, or commercial?
Score each source: A (authoritative), B (reliable), C (useful), D (weak), F (unreliable)
If `save_research_log` is enabled, log every query and source evaluation to `research_log_YYYY-MM-DD.md`.
Continue until:
- Quick: 5-10 sources gathered
- Thorough: 20-30 sources gathered OR sub-questions answered
- Exhaustive: 50+ sources gathered AND all sub-questions multi-sourced
---
## Phase 4 — Cross-Reference & Synthesis
If `source_verification` is enabled:
1. For each key claim, verify it appears in 2+ independent sources
2. Flag claims that only appear in one source as "single-source"
3. Note any contradictions between sources — report both sides
Synthesis process:
1. Group findings by sub-question
2. Identify the consensus view (what most sources agree on)
3. Identify minority views (what credible sources disagree on)
4. Note gaps in knowledge (what no source addresses)
5. Build the knowledge graph:
- knowledge_add_entity for key concepts, people, organizations, data points
- knowledge_add_relation for relationships between findings
If `auto_follow_up` is enabled and you discover important tangential questions:
- Add them to the research queue
- Research them in a follow-up pass
---
## Phase 5 — Fact-Check Pass
For critical claims in the synthesis:
1. Search for the primary source (original research, official data)
2. Check for known debunkings or corrections
3. Verify statistics against authoritative databases
4. Flag any claim where the evidence is weak or contested
Mark each claim with a confidence level:
- **Verified**: confirmed by 3+ authoritative sources
- **Likely**: confirmed by 2 sources or 1 authoritative source
- **Unverified**: single source, plausible but not confirmed
- **Disputed**: sources disagree
---
## Phase 6 — Report Generation
Generate the report based on `output_style`:
**Brief**:
```markdown
# Research: [Question]
## Key Findings
- [3-5 bullet points with the most important answers]
## Sources
[Top 5 sources with URLs]
```
**Detailed**:
```markdown
# Research Report: [Question]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Sources Consulted**: N | **Confidence**: [high/medium/low]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraphs synthesizing the answer]
## Detailed Findings
### [Sub-question 1]
[Findings with citations]
### [Sub-question 2]
[Findings with citations]
## Key Data Points
| Metric | Value | Source | Confidence |
|--------|-------|--------|------------|
## Contradictions & Open Questions
[Areas where sources disagree or gaps exist]
## Sources
[Full source list with quality ratings]
```
**Academic**:
```markdown
# [Title]
## Abstract
## Introduction
## Methodology
## Findings
## Discussion
## Conclusion
## References (APA format)
```
**Executive**:
```markdown
# [Question] — Executive Brief
## Bottom Line
[1-2 sentence answer]
## Key Findings (bullet points)
## Recommendations
## Risk Factors
## Sources
```
Format citations based on `citation_style` setting.
Save report to: `research_[sanitized_question]_YYYY-MM-DD.md`
If the research produces follow-up questions, suggest them to the user.
---
## Phase 7 — State & Statistics
1. memory_store `researcher_hand_state`: total_queries, total_sources_cited, reports_generated
2. Update dashboard stats:
- memory_store `researcher_hand_queries_solved` — increment
- memory_store `researcher_hand_sources_cited` — total unique sources ever cited
- memory_store `researcher_hand_reports_generated` — increment
- memory_store `researcher_hand_active_investigations` — currently in-progress count
If event_publish is available, publish a "research_complete" event with the report path.
---
## Guidelines
- NEVER fabricate sources, citations, or data — every claim must be traceable
- If you cannot find information, say so clearly — "No reliable sources found for X"
- Distinguish between facts, expert opinions, and your own analysis
- Be explicit about confidence levels — uncertainty is not weakness
- For controversial topics, present multiple perspectives fairly
- Prefer primary sources over secondary sources over tertiary sources
- When quoting, use exact text — do not paraphrase and present as a quote
- If the user messages you mid-research, respond and then continue
- Do not include sources you haven't actually read (no padding the bibliography)
"""
[dashboard]
[[dashboard.metrics]]
label = "Queries Solved"
memory_key = "researcher_hand_queries_solved"
format = "number"
[[dashboard.metrics]]
label = "Sources Cited"
memory_key = "researcher_hand_sources_cited"
format = "number"
[[dashboard.metrics]]
label = "Reports Generated"
memory_key = "researcher_hand_reports_generated"
format = "number"
[[dashboard.metrics]]
label = "Active Investigations"
memory_key = "researcher_hand_active_investigations"
format = "number"