| name | academic-research |
| description | Conduct deep academic research for philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and theoretical computer science (computability, complexity, AI theory, logic). Use when user asks to: research academic topics, find scholarly papers, conduct literature reviews, analyze citations, synthesize research findings, explore philosophical arguments, investigate consciousness/cognition, study computability/decidability/Turing machines, or analyze academic debates. Triggers on: 'research papers', 'literature review', 'academic sources', 'scholarly articles', 'philosophy of mind', 'computability theory', 'neuroscience studies', 'find papers on', 'what does the research say'. |
Academic Research Skill
Conduct comprehensive academic research mimicking Claude.ai's Research feature, specialized for philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and theoretical CS.
Research Workflow
1. Scope the Query
Before searching, clarify:
- Domain: Philosophy / Neuroscience / Cognitive Science / Theoretical CS
- Depth: Quick (3-5 sources) | Standard (10-15) | Deep (20+)
- Focus: Empirical findings / Theoretical frameworks / Historical development / Current debates
If unclear, ask one clarifying question before proceeding.
2. Search Strategy
Use web search with academic-focused queries. Search in waves:
Wave 1 - Core sources:
"[topic]" site:semanticscholar.org"[topic]" site:arxiv.org"[topic]" site:philpapers.org (for philosophy)"[topic]" site:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (for neuroscience)
Wave 2 - Expand with:
"[topic]" review paper OR survey"[topic]" [key author name]"[topic]" [specific journal from references/domains.md]
Wave 3 - Follow citations:
- Search for highly-cited papers found in Wave 1-2
- Look for "cited by" to find recent work building on seminal papers
3. Source Evaluation
For each source, extract and assess:
- Relevance (0-10): How directly does it address the query?
- Authority: Peer-reviewed? Citation count? Author credentials?
- Recency: Prioritize last 5 years unless historical context needed
- Type: Empirical study / Review / Theoretical / Commentary
Flag preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv) as non-peer-reviewed.
4. Triangulation
Cross-reference findings to identify:
- Consensus: Claims supported by multiple independent sources
- Debates: Conflicting findings or interpretations
- Gaps: Underexplored questions
- Key figures: Most-cited authors and seminal works
5. Synthesis Output
Structure the report as:
# Research Report: [Topic]
## Summary
[2-3 paragraph executive summary]
## Key Findings
1. [Finding with citation]
2. [Finding with citation]
...
## Theoretical Landscape
[Major positions, schools of thought, competing frameworks]
## Open Questions
[Active debates, unresolved issues, research gaps]
## Recommended Reading
- [Paper 1] - [1-sentence annotation]
- [Paper 2] - [1-sentence annotation]
...
## References
[Full citations, preferably with DOIs/URLs]
Domain-Specific Guidance
See references/domains.md for:
- Key journals and venues per domain
- Important authors and research groups
- Domain-specific terminology
- Relevant arXiv categories
Citation Format
Default: APA 7th edition. Include:
- DOI when available (as URL: https://doi.org/...)
- arXiv ID for preprints: arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX
- Direct URL to paper when no DOI
Quality Standards
- Never cite a paper without verifying it exists via search
- Distinguish peer-reviewed from preprints
- Note when findings are contested or preliminary
- Include publication year for temporal context
- Prefer primary sources over secondary summaries
Subagent Mode
When invoked programmatically, return structured data:
{
"query": "original research question",
"domain": "identified domain",
"sources_found": 15,
"key_findings": ["finding 1", "finding 2"],
"consensus_level": "high|moderate|low|contested",
"top_papers": [
{"title": "...", "authors": "...", "year": 2023, "url": "..."}
],
"research_gaps": ["gap 1", "gap 2"]
}
