Skip to main content

research-methodology

Best practices for systematic research, source evaluation, and evidence gathering

Zur Installation springen

Quellinformationen

Repository
vstorm-co/pydantic-deepagents
Letzte Quellaktivität
27. Februar 2026 um 21:59
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
1.068
Forks
132

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
research-methodology
description
Best practices for systematic research, source evaluation, and evidence gathering
auto_load
false
# Research Methodology Guide ## Search Strategy ### Phase 1: Broad Discovery - Start with general queries to understand the landscape - Use different phrasings for the same concept - Note key terminology, authors, and organizations ### Phase 2: Focused Deep-Dive - Search for specific claims, statistics, or technical details - Target authoritative sources identified in Phase 1 - Use exact phrases in quotes for precision ### Phase 3: Verification - Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources - Search for counter-arguments or contradictions - Check publication dates for recency ## Source Evaluation ### Reliability Hierarchy 1. **Academic papers** (peer-reviewed journals, arXiv preprints) 2. **Official documentation** (government, organization, project docs) 3. **Reputable news** (established outlets with editorial standards) 4. **Expert blog posts** (known authors with credentials) 5. **Community forums** (Stack Overflow, Reddit — use cautiously) ### Evaluation Checklist - **Authority**: Who wrote it? What are their credentials? - **Currency**: When was it published? Is it still relevant? - **Coverage**: Does it address the topic comprehensively? - **Accuracy**: Can claims be verified elsewhere? - **Objectivity**: Is there obvious bias or commercial interest? ## Note-Taking Best Practices ### Structure Each Note File ```markdown # [Sub-topic Title] ## Key Findings - Finding 1 [SOURCE: url, accessed YYYY-MM-DD] [HIGH confidence] - Finding 2 [SOURCE: url, accessed YYYY-MM-DD] [MEDIUM confidence] ## Contradictions - Source A says X, but Source B says Y ## Gaps - Could not find reliable data on Z ``` ### Confidence Levels - **[HIGH]**: Multiple authoritative sources agree - **[MEDIUM]**: Single authoritative source, or multiple less-reliable sources agree - **[LOW]**: Single non-authoritative source, or conflicting information ## Common Pitfalls - Don't rely on a single source for important claims - Check if "recent" articles cite outdated data - Be wary of sources that don't cite their own sources - Distinguish between correlation and causation - Note when sample sizes are small or studies are preliminary
Auf GitHub ansehen