メニュー
Load when a story needs factual grounding the writer doesn't have: historical detail, cultural texture, domain accuracy, or how other authors handled similar material. Pass the question and story context; returns a sourced report the writer can draw from.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Load for large human-facing outputs: reports, docs, multi-section explanations, artifacts. Choose the right form for each beat (prose, diagram, table, mockup) and put the answer first, depth behind it. If the medium allows, use progressive disclosure.
Use when deciding where knowledge goes or reading/writing durable docs: AGENTS.md, .context/, KB, docs/, and work directories.
Use when exploring or changing the codebase: read AGENTS.md first, use .context/CONTEXT.md for detail, keep intent docs succinct.
Load before writing or revising human-facing text. Choose words deliberately, ground the piece in the reader's context, and remove default LLM phrasing before the final draft.
Use when validating markdown links or Mermaid diagrams.
User-invoked pause before reporting to check intent vs literal completion, surface adjacent wins, and route knowledge capture.
| name | creative-research |
| type | reference |
| description | Load when a story needs factual grounding the writer doesn't have: historical detail, cultural texture, domain accuracy, or how other authors handled similar material. Pass the question and story context; returns a sourced report the writer can draw from. |
| model-invocable | true |
Gather material the writer can use. Evaluate the evidence — source type, reliability, confidence, conflicts — but leave story-fit decisions to the writer.
Primary sources. Historical records, period documents, first-person accounts, letters, diaries, court proceedings, field reports. These carry detail and texture that secondary summaries flatten.
Reference works and published fiction. Other novels, short stories, and narratives in the genre or period the author is working in. How have other writers handled similar material, settings, or problems?
History, mythology, and lore. Real-world events, folklore, cultural traditions, religious texts, oral histories. Look for the specific and surprising over the general and expected.
Wikis and encyclopedias. Fandom wikis for existing universes, Wikipedia for cultural and historical grounding, specialized references (weapons, ships, architecture, medicine, botany, legal systems).
Community discussion. Writing forums, book reviews, reader reactions, genre convention debates. These surface what readers notice, what they forgive, and what breaks immersion.
Social media and interviews. Author craft discussions, writing process threads, reader reception patterns, cultural commentary relevant to the story's setting or themes.
Domain expertise. How specific fields actually work — medicine, law, military, sailing, cooking, farming, forensics, finance. The operational details that make fiction feel grounded. Look for practitioner accounts over textbook summaries.
Place and culture. Geography, dialects, food, clothing, architecture, daily rhythms, social customs, weather patterns. The sensory and social texture of a setting.
Search for current sources over training-data recall. Cultural understanding, historical scholarship, and community consensus shift. Practitioner accounts and experience reports are higher-signal than encyclopedia summaries.
Surface conflicting information. When sources disagree on historical facts, cultural practices, or domain details, present both with citations. The writer needs to know where the record is contested.
Follow the specific. "Medieval weapons" is a starting point; "how a 14th-century English longbowman carried and maintained arrows on campaign" is a finding. The writer needs concrete detail, not category overviews.
Structure your report:
Include citations and enough context that the writer can evaluate relevance without re-researching. Your final message is your report.
