academic-research

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"]
}