agent-research

name	agent-research
description	Strict research and design workflow for general coding-agent loops with evidence-backed benchmarking, iterative user discussion, and explicit execution handoff.
version	1.1.0
author	Pulse Coder Team

Agent Research & Design Skill (Strict, English)

Goal

This skill is for systematically researching and designing a general Agent Loop / Coding Agent capability model, ensuring:

1. Atomic capabilities are clearly defined and implementable.
2. Benchmarking against mainstream implementations (pi-mono / OpenCode / Claude Code) is evidence-backed.
3. The proposed design is discussion-ready and iteration-friendly.
4. No implementation starts before explicit user confirmation.

---

Non-Negotiable Rules

1. Research first, design second, execution last.
   Do not move into implementation before research + design convergence.

2. All key claims must be source-traceable.
   Every important claim must include URL citations. If not, mark as assumption/speculation.

3. Separate facts from interpretation.
   Explicitly label output as:

   • Fact
   • Inference
   • Proposal

4. Minimum research depth is mandatory.

   • At least 8 rounds of search, at most 12 rounds.
   • At least 12 unique source URLs.
   • Must cover 3 required targets: pi-mono, OpenCode, Claude Code.

5. Atomic capabilities must follow a standard schema.
   Each capability must include: definition, input, output, trigger, failure mode, recovery strategy, success metrics.

6. No execution without explicit user Yes.
   Always ask for final execution confirmation before implementation actions.

---

Required Execution Flow

Phase 0: Scope Alignment

Before research starts, clarify:

• Target context (CLI agent / IDE agent / server agent)
• Constraints (time, budget, model limits, tool permissions)
• Deliverable depth (concept paper / technical design / executable task plan)

If missing info exists, ask questions first.

---

Phase 1: Atomic Capability Design

Draft the capability map first, including at least:

• Task Understanding
• Planning
• Tool Use
• Context Management
• Code Execution Loop
• Reflection / Critique
• Safety & Guardrails
• Memory
• Human-in-the-loop
• Evaluation & Telemetry

For each capability, provide:

• Name
• Definition
• Input
• Output
• Trigger
• Tool/Context dependencies
• Failure mode
• Recovery strategy
• Success metrics (prefer measurable metrics)

---

Phase 2: External Benchmarking

Mandatory Targets

• pi-mono
• OpenCode
• Claude Code

Optional Targets

• Cursor Agent
• Aider
• Copilot CLI

Research Constraints

• 8-12 progressive search rounds (overview → architecture → loop mechanics → trade-offs → validation)
• For each round, report: objective, queries, new findings, open questions
• At least 12 unique URLs
• Source priority: official docs > source repo/code > technical blogs > secondary summaries
• Cross-validate key claims with at least 2 sources (otherwise mark as low confidence)

---

Phase 3: Synthesis & Proposal

Output must include:

1. Atomic capability catalog (standardized definitions)
2. Benchmark matrix (implementation comparison)
3. Recommended architecture (MVP / v1 / v2)
4. Core trade-offs (complexity, cost, robustness, extensibility)
5. Risk register with mitigation strategies
6. Open decisions list (5-10 items)

Also explicitly mark:

• what is fact,
• what is inference,
• what is proposal.

---

Phase 4: Discussion Loop with User

In each discussion iteration:

• Provide “current recommendation + 3-5 key questions”
• Maintain status buckets:
  • Confirmed
  • Pending
  • Changed
• Publish a decision snapshot at the end of each iteration

Move to final confirmation when pending items ≤ 2, or user says design is converged.

---

Phase 5: Execution Confirmation

Use an explicit confirmation question:

“The design is now largely converged. Do you want me to enter execution mode? Options:

1. detailed technical design,
2. task breakdown & timeline,
3. code skeleton,
4. direct implementation.”

• If user confirms: re-confirm scope boundaries, then execute.
• If user declines: deliver finalized design artifacts and next-step recommendations only.

---

Required Output Artifacts

A. Capability Spec Table

Capability	Definition	Input	Output	Trigger	Failure Mode	Recovery	KPI

B. Benchmark Matrix

System	Loop Pattern	Tool Strategy	Context Strategy	Safety Mechanism	Strengths	Limitations

C. Evidence Ledger

Claim	Type (Fact/Inference)	Source URL	Confidence (High/Med/Low)	Notes

D. Roadmap

• MVP (2-4 weeks)
• v1 (1-2 months)
• v2 (continuous optimization)

E. Decision Log

• Confirmed
• Pending
• Changed

---

Completion Criteria

This skill is complete only when all items are satisfied:

• 8+ research rounds completed
• 12+ unique sources provided
• Atomic capabilities standardized
• Benchmark matrix + evidence ledger delivered
• At least one user discussion iteration completed
• Explicit execution confirmation asked and recorded