Skip to main content

web-research

Multi-step web search with cross-verification and structured synthesis

Quellinformationen

Repository
modelscope/leapflow
Letzte Quellaktivität
22. September 2026 um 14:28
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
10
Forks
6

Installationsoptionen

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.

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
web_research
description
Multi-step web search with cross-verification and structured synthesis
version
1.0.0
metadata
{"leapflow":{"category":"research","source":"builtin","confidence":1,"quality_score":1},"hermes":{"category":"research","tags":["web","search","research","synthesis","fact-checking"],"requires_tools":["web_search","web_fetch"]}}
platforms
[]
triggers
["research this topic","search the web for","find information about","look up","investigate online","web research","deep search","find and summarize"]
# Web Research ## Purpose Conduct rigorous, multi-step web research that goes beyond a single search query. This skill orchestrates a structured research workflow: planning a search strategy, executing multiple targeted queries, cross-verifying claims across independent sources, and synthesizing findings into a coherent, well-sourced report. ## Guiding Principles 1. **Breadth before depth** — Cast a wide net with diverse queries before drilling into any single source. Reformulate queries when initial results are thin. 2. **Source triangulation** — Never trust a single source. Every key claim must appear in at least two independent sources before it is treated as established. 3. **Recency awareness** — Prefer recent sources for fast-moving topics. Flag when the most recent source is older than the topic warrants. 4. **Bias detection** — Note when sources share a common owner, funding body, or obvious editorial slant. Weight accordingly. 5. **Transparency** — Every factual statement in the final report must link back to the source URL it was derived from. ## Workflow ### Phase 1 — Understand the Question Before any search, decompose the user's request: - Identify the **core question** (what must be answered). - List **sub-questions** that feed into the core answer. - Note any **constraints**: date range, geography, domain, language. - Decide on a **search budget**: how many queries are proportionate to the task (typically 3–8 queries; simple factual lookups need fewer). Output a brief research plan (≤ 6 bullet points) and confirm with yourself before proceeding. ### Phase 2 — Execute Searches For each sub-question, craft a targeted search query: 1. Use **specific, keyword-rich** queries — avoid full sentences. 2. Vary phrasing across queries to surface different result sets. 3. Include **domain-specific qualifiers** when useful (e.g., `site:arxiv.org`, `filetype:pdf`, `"exact phrase"`). 4. After each `web_search` call, scan the snippets. If a result looks authoritative or contains the needed data, fetch the full page with `web_fetch`. 5. Record each source: URL, title, date (if available), and a 1–2 sentence summary of what it contributes. Do NOT fetch every result — only those that plausibly advance an answer. ### Phase 3 — Cross-Verify Lay out the key claims you have gathered and check: - Does each claim appear in **≥ 2 independent sources**? - Are any claims **contradicted** by another source? If so, note the contradiction and assess which source is more credible (recency, authority, methodology). - Are there **gaps** — sub-questions that no source adequately addresses? If so, run 1–2 additional targeted searches. ### Phase 4 — Synthesize Produce a structured report: ``` ## Summary <2–4 sentence executive summary> ## Key Findings 1. <Finding with inline source reference [1]> 2. ... ## Contradictions / Uncertainties - <Any unresolved conflicts or low-confidence claims> ## Sources [1] <title> — <url> (accessed <date>) [2] ... ``` Rules for the report: - Lead with the answer — do not bury it after methodology. - Use numbered source references; every factual claim must cite at least one. - Clearly separate established facts from speculation or single-source claims. - If the research is inconclusive, say so explicitly rather than hedging. ### Phase 5 — Self-Check Before delivering: - Re-read the original question. Does the report actually answer it? - Are all source URLs valid (no hallucinated links)? - Is the report length proportionate to the question's complexity? ## Error Handling | Situation | Action | |---|---| | `web_search` returns no results | Reformulate the query with broader or alternative terms; try up to 2 reformulations before reporting the gap. | | `web_fetch` fails or returns empty | Note the URL as inaccessible; do not cite it. Rely on the search snippet if it contained the needed fact. | | Contradictory sources with equal credibility | Present both perspectives explicitly; do not silently pick one. | | Topic is too broad | Ask the user to narrow scope before consuming the full search budget. | ## Limitations - This skill relies on `web_search` and `web_fetch` tools. If they are unavailable, the skill cannot execute. - Results are bounded by what the search engine indexes; paywalled or dynamically rendered content may be inaccessible. - Always note when a topic requires expertise that web search alone cannot reliably provide (medical, legal, financial advice).
Auf GitHub ansehen