Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Build and maintain durable article research artifacts before drafting so the writer can reuse source-backed understanding without researching twice.
Article Researcher
Use this skill before outlining or drafting an article when the topic requires understanding, evidence, source inspection, or factual grounding.
Use this skill as the article-writing agent's research phase when the article needs source investigation or evidence grounding.
It owns the research and investigation phase; the article-writing skill owns hierarchical structure, style and language decisions, outline shaping, drafting, and revision.
Start by reading the team writing principles and use them as the quality standard for evidence, clarity, and the rule that style never creates facts.
Core Principle
Research should become durable files, not temporary chat context.
The research package is complete only when the writer can outline and draft from the artifacts without opening new sources or repeating discovery.
Once a research package exists, read it first and update only missing or stale parts instead of researching the same topic again.
Research Sufficiency Contract
The researcher must not hand off vague notes.
A handoff is writer-ready only when it answers, in durable files:
What is the article about?
What does the reader need to understand before the claim makes sense?
What does the reader likely know, assume, or need at the start, and what questions must be answered in sequence?
What exact mechanisms, chronology, definitions, or product sequence must be preserved?
For a product or system comparison, what first-class primitives does each product expose, how are they packaged, and which dimensions are orthogonal or composable rather than competing modes?
For a builder-owned design article, what user problem, interaction surface, and end-to-end scenario explain why each primitive exists?
Which claims are source-backed, and by which source IDs or paths?
Which claims are uncertain, too strong, stale, or unsupported?
Which contrast frames, recommendations, root-cause statements, or production observations are allowed or forbidden by evidence?
What should the writer say directly, and what should the writer avoid inventing?
If the writer would need to search, inspect code, reread papers, or ask broad clarification before drafting, the research package is not complete.
Produced Artifacts
brief.md
understanding-notes.md
source-index.md
claim-evidence-ledger.md when factual, technical, source-backed, or interpretive claims need explicit support
research-handoff.md summarizing the writer-ready article material, must-preserve mechanisms, allowed claims, caveats, and forbidden overclaims
Optional research-open-questions.md when blocked by missing user input or unavailable sources
Research Modes
Use one or more modes, choosing the smallest set that supports the article:
supplied-source: understand files, notes, pasted material, links, transcripts, screenshots, or source articles supplied by the user
workspace-source: inspect project files, source code, docs, tests, logs, examples, or existing artifacts in the current workspace
online-research: search the web, read websites, documentation, public repos, announcements, standards, papers, or other current sources when useful and allowed
paper-document: read papers, PDFs, reports, manuals, specifications, or long documents
experiential-builder: organize the user's firsthand sequence, observations, product decisions, runtime behavior, or implementation story
If no mode is explicit, infer the smallest mode that can support the requested article. Do not over-research a simple style rewrite, and do not under-research an article that makes technical, factual, or current-world claims.
Workflow
Step 1 - Reuse existing research first
Before new research, look for existing artifacts in the article workspace:
brief.md
understanding-notes.md
source-index.md
claim-evidence-ledger.md
style-profile-notes.md, outline.md, or prior drafts when they reveal scope or prior decisions
If existing research is already sufficient for the requested article or revision, do not repeat the research. Instead, record that the package was reused and continue to the writing skill.
Update research only when:
the user changes the topic, audience, thesis, depth, or platform in a way that changes required evidence
the package lacks support for a planned claim, contrast, recommendation, root-cause statement, or production observation
source material is stale for a current-world claim
the reviewer or user identifies an understanding, source, or evidence gap
Step 2 - Write or update brief.md
Record:
article objective
audience
language and platform if known
style profile if known
rhetorical mode if known
one-sentence takeaway if known
depth target
research modes used
allowed investigation methods
source basis
active user constraints or corrections
explicit limitations, assumptions, and bootstrapping notes
The brief does not need to decide final style. It must make the research scope clear enough for the writing skill.
Step 3 - Build understanding-notes.md
Record:
the question or article objective being understood
source-by-source notes
workspace files, code paths, commands, or observations that matter
online/documentation/paper findings when used
definitions, mechanisms, chronology, and distinctions the article must preserve
user-supplied firsthand sequence or product observations
uncertainty, caveats, source limitations, and open questions
user corrections that override prior assumptions
For product-builder or architecture articles, preserve practical sequences such as:
we used X -> it did Y -> we observed Z -> we changed to W -> we noticed Q
Do not compress these into generic article claims. The writing skill needs the actual sequence.
For comparative product or architecture articles, also build a primitive inventory before proposing a taxonomy or article spine. Use the same neutral dimensions for every product when relevant, such as:
reusable definitions and organization
execution units and lifetime
communication and human interaction/UI
task or work state
result return, review, and acceptance
context and artifact transfer
Keep product definition, live execution, work/task record, communication, and review state distinct. Explicitly mark whether the dimensions are alternatives, independent axes, or composable layers. Do not turn differently packaged primitives into mutually exclusive product categories.
For a builder-owned design explanation, capture both mechanism and intent:
what user or organizational problem motivated the primitive
who initiates and who owns each transition
what a user can see, inspect, or interact with in the product surface
one continuous scenario that exercises the relevant primitives together
which design conclusions the scenario supports and which remain preferences or tradeoffs
If these facts are not observable in supplied material, code, docs, or UI evidence, ask targeted questions such as Why was this primitive created? or What can the user inspect or control here? before declaring the research writer-ready.
Step 4 - Build source-index.md
Record every relevant source with:
source ID
path or URL
source type
date or version when relevant
what it contributed
credibility, freshness, or limitation notes
status: used, background, rejected, or open
For workspace-source research, include exact file paths and commands inspected.
For online-current research, include access dates or publication dates where recency matters.
For paper/document research, include enough document detail to support the claims; do not infer specifics from title or abstract alone.
Treat product-absence and limitation claims as high-risk current claims. Before writing does not support, only returns, cannot, or an equivalent comparison:
inspect current authoritative evidence, such as official documentation, pinned current source, or directly observed product/UI behavior, not only prior articles or memory
check adjacent, experimental, UI-specific, and differently named feature surfaces
record the version/commit and access date
distinguish absent from available but packaged differently, optional, experimental, or not first-class
if authoritative evidence is unavailable, qualify the result as not observed in the checked sources rather than claiming that the capability is absent
Step 5 - Build claim-evidence-ledger.md when needed
Create this file when the article depends on factual, technical, source-backed, or interpretive claims.
For each load-bearing claim, record:
claim
evidence anchor
source IDs or paths
confidence
caveats
what would make the claim too strong
Always track style-sensitive claims when used:
contrastive frames such as not X, but Y
claims that a belief is common, shallow, wrong, or incomplete
should recommendations
root-cause claims such as the deeper problem is
production observations such as we observed, we found, or this worked
If evidence does not support the setup side of a contrast or recommendation, tell the writing skill to remove that framing and write the supported mechanism directly.
Step 6 - Write research-handoff.md
Create a compact but complete handoff for the writing skill.
This file is the bridge from research to article writing and should let the writer draft without re-researching.
Include:
artifact paths for the full research package
article objective and target reader problem
5-12 source-backed facts, mechanisms, or observations the article can safely use
exact chronology, product sequence, or causal chain to preserve
terms and definitions that must stay precise
source IDs for load-bearing claims
central question or reader problem and the bounded answer the evidence can support
reader starting point and a candidate question ladder: what each major step answers and what it makes possible to ask next
recommended article spine based on the research, with one sentence per candidate section and the dependency or reader question connecting them, without doing style drafting
evidence or mechanism burden for each candidate section; do not invent paragraph prose here
for comparisons, the neutral primitive inventory, composability classification, and one same-scenario walkthrough across products
allowed claims and allowed contrast frames
forbidden overclaims, unsupported claims, and wording traps
caveats, uncertainty, freshness limits, and open questions
visual opportunities grounded in evidence, if any
Do not make research-handoff.md a vague summary. It should be specific enough that the writing skill can use it as the first source to build the outline.
Step 7 - Research readiness gate
Before switching to the writing skill, verify:
brief.md records the article objective, audience, depth, research modes, and constraints
understanding-notes.md and source-index.md support the intended article scope
claim-evidence-ledger.md exists when explicit evidence tracking is needed
research-handoff.md gives a writer-ready summary with must-use claims, mechanisms, caveats, and forbidden overclaims
no planned contrast, common-belief claim, recommendation, root-cause claim, or production observation lacks an evidence anchor
comparative dimensions are neutral, consistent across products, and do not mislabel composable primitives as exclusive modes
negative capability claims were checked against current authoritative evidence and are qualified precisely, including not observed in the checked sources when evidence is incomplete
builder-owned design rationale, product interaction surface, and a representative end-to-end scenario are captured when they are central to the article
the reader starting point and candidate question ladder are explicit enough for the writing phase to turn into a coherent reader journey
open questions are either resolved, narrowed, or explicitly listed
the writer should not need to open new sources, inspect code, or perform broad discovery before outlining
If the gate fails, update the research package or ask a targeted question before drafting.
Handoff To Writing Skill
After research, hand off to article-writing with:
research-handoff.md first
research artifact paths
key mechanisms or sequences the article must preserve
source IDs for load-bearing claims
caveats and forbidden overclaims
open questions or intentionally narrowed scope
The article-writing skill should treat the research package as the source of truth and should not redo research.
If the writing skill finds a gap, it should return to this skill with the exact missing claim or source need instead of doing independent research.
