| name | deep-research |
| description | Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文献回顾, 文献探讨, 系统性回顾, 后设分析, 事实查核, 引导我的研究, 帮我厘清, 帮我想想, 我不确定要研究什么, 研究方向, 研究主题. |
| metadata | {"version":"2.7","last_updated":"2026-04-06","status":"active","related_skills":["academic-paper","academic-pipeline"]} |
Deep Research — Universal Academic Research Agent Team
Universal deep research tool — a domain-agnostic 13-agent team for rigorous academic research on any topic.
v2.4 adds writing quality improvements to the report compiler:
- Style Profile consumption (optional) — If a Style Profile is available from academic-paper intake, the report compiler applies it as a soft guide for the Executive Summary and Synthesis sections. Discipline conventions and report objectivity take priority.
- Writing Quality Check — The report compiler runs a writing quality checklist before finalizing: flags AI-typical overused terms, checks sentence/paragraph length variation, removes throat-clearing openers. See
academic-paper/references/writing_quality_check.md.
Quick Start
Minimal command:
Research the impact of AI on higher education quality assurance
Socratic mode:
Guide my research on the impact of declining birth rates on private universities
引导我的研究：少子化对私立大学的影响
帮我厘清我的研究方向，我对高教品保有兴趣但还不太确定
Execution:
- Scoping — Research question + methodology blueprint
- Investigation — Systematic literature search + source verification
- Analysis — Cross-source synthesis + bias check
- Composition — Full APA 7.0 report
- Review — Editorial + ethics + vulnerability scan
- Revision — Final polished report
Trigger Conditions
Trigger Keywords
English: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, methodology, APA report, academic analysis, policy analysis, guide my research, help me think through, monitor this topic, set up alerts
简体中文: 研究, 深度研究, 文献回顾, 文献探讨, 系统性回顾, 后设分析, 证据综整, 事实查核, 研究方法, 学术分析, 政策分析, 引导我的研究, 帮我厘清, 监测这个主题, 设定追踪
Socratic Mode Activation
Activate socratic mode when the user's intent matches any of the following patterns, regardless of language. Detect meaning, not exact keywords.
Intent signals (any one is sufficient):
- User has no clear research question and wants guided thinking
- User asks to be "led", "guided", or "mentored" through research
- User expresses uncertainty about what to research or where to start
- User wants to brainstorm, explore, or clarify a research direction
- User describes a vague interest without a specific, answerable question
Default rule: When intent is ambiguous between socratic and full, prefer socratic — it is safer to guide first than to produce an unwanted report. The user can always switch to full later.
Example triggers (illustrative, not exhaustive):
"guide my research", "help me think through", 「引导我的研究」「帮我厘清」, or equivalent in any language
Does NOT Trigger
| Scenario | Use Instead |
|---|
| Writing a paper (not researching) | academic-paper |
| Reviewing a paper (structured review) | academic-paper-reviewer |
| Full research-to-paper pipeline | academic-pipeline |
Quick Mode Selection Guide
| Your Situation 你的状况 | Recommended Mode |
|---|
| Vague idea, need guidance / 有模糊想法，需要引导 | socratic |
| Clear RQ, need comprehensive research / 有明确 RQ，需要完整研究 | full |
| Need a quick brief (30 min) / 需要快速摘要 | quick |
| Have a paper to evaluate before citing / 有论文需要评估 | review |
| Need literature review for a topic / 需要文献回顾 | lit-review |
| Need to verify specific claims / 需要查核特定事实 | fact-check |
| Need systematic review / meta-analysis / 系统性回顾或后设分析 | systematic-review |
Not sure? Start with socratic — it will help you figure out what you need.
不确定？先用 socratic 模式——它会帮你厘清你需要什么。
Agent Team (13 Agents)
| # | Agent | Role | Phase |
|---|
| 1 | research_question_agent | Transforms vague topics into precise, FINER-scored research questions with scope boundaries | Phase 1, Socratic Layer 1 |
| 2 | research_architect_agent | Designs methodology blueprint: paradigm, method, data strategy, analytical framework, validity criteria | Phase 1 |
| 3 | bibliography_agent | Systematic literature search, source screening, annotated bibliography in APA 7.0 | Phase 2 |
| 4 | source_verification_agent | Fact-checking, source grading (evidence hierarchy), predatory journal detection, conflict-of-interest flagging | Phase 2 |
| 5 | synthesis_agent | Cross-source integration, contradiction resolution, thematic synthesis, gap analysis | Phase 3 |
| 6 | report_compiler_agent | Drafts complete APA 7.0 report (Title -> Abstract -> Intro -> Method -> Findings -> Discussion -> References) | Phase 4, 6 |
| 7 | editor_in_chief_agent | Q1 journal editorial review: originality, rigor, evidence sufficiency, verdict (Accept/Revise/Reject) | Phase 5 |
| 8 | devils_advocate_agent | Challenges assumptions, tests for logical fallacies, finds alternative explanations, confirmation bias checks | Phase 1, 3, 5, Socratic Layer 2, 4 |
| 9 | ethics_review_agent | AI-assisted research ethics, attribution integrity, dual-use screening, fair representation | Phase 5 |
| 10 | socratic_mentor_agent | Q1 journal editor persona; guides research thinking through Socratic questioning across 5 layers | Socratic Mode (Layer 1-5) |
| 11 | risk_of_bias_agent | Assesses risk of bias using RoB 2 (RCTs) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized); traffic-light visualization | Systematic Review (Phase 2) |
| 12 | meta_analysis_agent | Designs and executes meta-analysis or narrative synthesis; effect sizes, heterogeneity, GRADE | Systematic Review (Phase 3) |
| 13 | monitoring_agent | Post-research literature monitoring: digests, retraction alerts, contradictory findings detection | Optional (post-pipeline) |
Mode Selection Guide
See references/mode_selection_guide.md for the detailed guide.
User Input
|
+-- Already have a clear research question?
| +-- Yes --> Need PRISMA-compliant systematic review / meta-analysis?
| | +-- Yes --> systematic-review mode
| | +-- No --> Need a full report?
| | +-- Yes --> full mode
| | +-- No --> Only need literature?
| | +-- Yes --> lit-review mode
| | +-- No --> quick mode
| +-- No --> Want to be guided through thinking?
| +-- Yes --> socratic mode
| +-- No --> full mode (Phase 1 will be interactive)
|
+-- Already have text to review? --> review mode
+-- Only need fact-checking? --> fact-check mode
Orchestration Workflow (6 Phases)
User: "Research [topic]"
|
=== Phase 1: SCOPING (Interactive) ===
|
|-> [research_question_agent] -> RQ Brief
| - FINER criteria scoring (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant)
| - Scope boundaries (in-scope / out-of-scope)
| - 2-3 sub-questions
|
|-> [research_architect_agent] -> Methodology Blueprint
| - Research paradigm (positivist / interpretivist / pragmatist)
| - Method selection (qualitative / quantitative / mixed)
| - Data strategy (primary / secondary / both)
| - Analytical framework
| - Validity & reliability criteria
|
+-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 1
- RQ clarity and answerable?
- Method appropriate for question?
- Scope too broad or too narrow?
- Verdict: PASS / REVISE (with specific feedback)
|
** User confirmation before Phase 2 **
|
=== Phase 2: INVESTIGATION ===
|
|-> [bibliography_agent] -> Source Corpus + Annotated Bibliography
| - Systematic search strategy (databases, keywords, Boolean)
| - Inclusion/exclusion criteria
| - PRISMA-style flow (if applicable)
| - Annotated bibliography (APA 7.0)
|
+-> [source_verification_agent] -> Verified & Graded Sources
- Evidence hierarchy grading (Level I-VII)
- Predatory journal screening
- Conflict-of-interest flagging
- Currency assessment (publication date relevance)
- Source quality matrix
|
=== Phase 3: ANALYSIS ===
|
|-> [synthesis_agent] -> Synthesis Narrative + Gap Analysis
| - Thematic synthesis across sources
| - Contradiction identification & resolution
| - Evidence convergence/divergence mapping
| - Knowledge gap analysis
| - Theoretical framework integration
|
+-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 2
- Cherry-picking check
- Confirmation bias detection
- Logic chain validation
- Alternative explanations explored?
- Verdict: PASS / REVISE
|
=== Phase 4: COMPOSITION ===
|
+-> [report_compiler_agent] -> Full APA 7.0 Draft
- Title Page
- Abstract (150-250 words)
- Introduction (context, problem, purpose, RQ)
- Literature Review / Theoretical Framework
- Methodology
- Findings / Results
- Discussion (interpretation, implications, limitations)
- Conclusion & Recommendations
- References (APA 7.0)
- Appendices (if applicable)
|
=== Phase 5: REVIEW (Parallel) ===
|
|-> [editor_in_chief_agent] -> Editorial Verdict + Line Feedback
| - Originality assessment
| - Methodological rigor
| - Evidence sufficiency
| - Argument coherence
| - Writing quality (clarity, conciseness, flow)
| - Verdict: ACCEPT / MINOR REVISION / MAJOR REVISION / REJECT
|
|-> [ethics_review_agent] -> Ethics Clearance
| - AI disclosure compliance
| - Attribution integrity
| - Dual-use screening
| - Fair representation check
| - Verdict: CLEARED / CONDITIONAL / BLOCKED
|
+-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 3
- Final vulnerability scan
- Strongest counter-argument test
- "So what?" significance check
- Verdict: PASS / REVISE
|
=== Phase 6: REVISION ===
|
+-> [report_compiler_agent] -> Final Report
- Address editorial feedback
- Resolve ethics conditions
- Incorporate devil's advocate insights
- Max 2 revision loops
- Remaining issues -> "Acknowledged Limitations" section
Checkpoint Rules
- ⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate has 3 mandatory checkpoints; Critical-severity issues block progression
- Revision loops capped at 2 iterations; remaining issues become "acknowledged limitations"
- ⚠️ IRON RULE: Ethics Review can halt delivery for Critical ethics concerns
- User confirmation required after Phase 1 before proceeding
Socratic Mode: Guided Research Dialogue
5-layer dialogue guiding users from vague ideas to concrete research questions. Core principle: ⚠️ IRON RULE: Never give direct answers.
Layers: Clarification -> Assumption Probing -> Evidence/Reasoning -> Viewpoint/Perspective -> Implication/Consequence
See references/socratic_mode_protocol.md for the full 5-layer dialogue flow, management rules, and auto-end conditions.
Systematic Review Mode
PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Follows 5-phase protocol: Protocol Registration -> Systematic Search -> Screening & Selection -> Data Extraction & RoB -> Synthesis & Reporting.
See references/systematic_review_protocol.md for full PRISMA pipeline, checkpoint rules, and meta-analysis procedures.
Operational Modes
| Mode | Agents Active | Output | Word Count |
|---|
full (default) | All 9 core (excluding socratic_mentor, RoB, meta-analysis) | Full APA 7.0 report | 3,000-8,000 |
quick | RQ + Biblio + Verification + Report | Research brief | 500-1,500 |
review | Editor + Devil's Advocate + Ethics | Reviewer report on provided text | N/A |
lit-review | Biblio + Verification + Synthesis | Annotated bibliography + synthesis | 1,500-4,000 |
fact-check | Source Verification only | Verification report | 300-800 |
socratic | Socratic Mentor + RQ + Devil's Advocate | Research Plan Summary (INSIGHT collection) | N/A (iterative) |
systematic-review | RQ + Architect + Biblio + Verification + RoB + Meta-Analysis + Synthesis + Report + Editor + Ethics + DA | Full PRISMA 2020 report + forest plot data + GRADE table | 5,000-15,000 |
Failure Paths
See references/failure_paths.md for all failure scenarios, trigger conditions, and recovery strategies across all modes.
Key failure path summary:
| Failure Scenario | Trigger Condition | Recovery Strategy |
|---|
| RQ cannot converge | Phase 1 / Layer 1 exceeds multiple rounds while still vague | Provide 3 candidate RQs or suggest lit-review |
| Insufficient literature | bibliography_agent finds < 5 sources | Expand search strategy, alternative keywords |
| Methodology mismatch | RQ type misaligned with method capability | Return to Phase 1, suggest 3 alternative methods |
| Devil's Advocate CRITICAL | Fatal logical flaw discovered | STOP, explain the issue, require correction |
| Ethics BLOCKED | Serious ethical issue | STOP, list issues and remediation path |
| Socratic non-convergence | > 10 rounds without convergence | Suggest switching to full mode |
| User abandons mid-process | Explicitly states they don't want to continue | Save progress, provide re-entry path |
| Only Chinese-language literature | English search returns empty | Switch to Chinese academic databases |
Literature Monitoring (Optional Post-Pipeline)
Optional post-research monitoring for new publications in the research area.
See references/literature_monitoring_strategies.md for setup instructions across academic databases.
Handoff Protocol: deep-research → academic-paper
After research is complete, the following materials can be handed off to academic-paper:
- Research Question Brief (from research_question_agent)
- Methodology Blueprint (from research_architect_agent)
- Annotated Bibliography (from bibliography_agent)
- Synthesis Report (from synthesis_agent)
- [If socratic mode] INSIGHT Collection and Research Plan Summary
Trigger: User says "now help me write a paper" or "write a paper based on this"
academic-paper's intake_agent will automatically detect available materials and skip redundant steps:
- Has RQ Brief -> skip topic scoping
- Has Bibliography -> skip literature search
- Has Synthesis -> accelerate findings / discussion writing
See examples/handoff_to_paper.md for a detailed handoff example.
Full Academic Pipeline
See academic-pipeline/SKILL.md for the complete workflow.
Agent File References
| Agent | Definition File |
|---|
| research_question_agent | agents/research_question_agent.md |
| research_architect_agent | agents/research_architect_agent.md |
| bibliography_agent | agents/bibliography_agent.md |
| source_verification_agent | agents/source_verification_agent.md |
| synthesis_agent | agents/synthesis_agent.md |
| report_compiler_agent | agents/report_compiler_agent.md |
| editor_in_chief_agent | agents/editor_in_chief_agent.md |
| devils_advocate_agent | agents/devils_advocate_agent.md |
| ethics_review_agent | agents/ethics_review_agent.md |
| socratic_mentor_agent | agents/socratic_mentor_agent.md |
| risk_of_bias_agent | agents/risk_of_bias_agent.md |
| meta_analysis_agent | agents/meta_analysis_agent.md |
| monitoring_agent | agents/monitoring_agent.md |
Reference Files
| Reference | Purpose | Used By |
|---|
references/apa7_style_guide.md | APA 7th edition quick reference | report_compiler, editor_in_chief |
references/source_quality_hierarchy.md | Evidence pyramid + grading rubric | source_verification, bibliography |
references/methodology_patterns.md | Research design templates | research_architect |
references/logical_fallacies.md | 30+ fallacies catalog | devils_advocate |
references/ethics_checklist.md | AI disclosure, attribution, dual-use | ethics_review |
references/interdisciplinary_bridges.md | Cross-discipline connection patterns | synthesis, research_architect |
references/socratic_questioning_framework.md | 6 types of Socratic questions + 30+ prompt patterns | socratic_mentor |
references/failure_paths.md | 12 failure scenarios with triggers and recovery paths | all agents |
references/mode_selection_guide.md | Mode selection flowchart and comparison table | orchestrator |
references/irb_decision_tree.md | IRB decision tree + China process + HE quick reference | ethics_review, research_architect |
references/equator_reporting_guidelines.md | EQUATOR reporting guideline mapping | research_architect, report_compiler |
references/preregistration_guide.md | Preregistration decision tree + platforms + checklist | research_architect |
references/systematic_review_toolkit.md | Cochrane v6.4, PRISMA 2020, RoB 2, ROBINS-I, I² guide, GRADE, protocol registration | risk_of_bias, meta_analysis, bibliography, report_compiler |
references/literature_monitoring_strategies.md | Google Scholar alerts, PubMed alerts, RSS feeds, Retraction Watch, citation tracking, monitoring cadence | monitoring_agent |
references/argumentation_reasoning_framework.md | Cognitive framework for evaluating argument strength: Toulmin model, causal reasoning (Bradford Hill), inference to best explanation, epistemic status classification | synthesis, devils_advocate, source_verification, socratic_mentor, research_architect |
references/socratic_mode_protocol.md | Full 5-layer Socratic dialogue flow, management rules, auto-end conditions | socratic_mentor, research_question |
references/systematic_review_protocol.md | Full PRISMA pipeline, checkpoint rules, meta-analysis procedures | risk_of_bias, meta_analysis, bibliography, report_compiler |
references/cross_agent_quality_definitions.md | Peer-reviewed source tiers, currency standards, severity definitions | all agents |
references/changelog.md | Full version history | — |
Templates
| Template | Purpose |
|---|
templates/research_brief_template.md | Quick mode output format |
templates/literature_matrix_template.md | Source x Theme analysis matrix |
templates/evidence_assessment_template.md | Per-source quality assessment card |
templates/preregistration_template.md | OSF standard 21-item preregistration template |
templates/prisma_protocol_template.md | PRISMA-P 2015 systematic review protocol template |
templates/prisma_report_template.md | PRISMA 2020 systematic review report template (27 items) |
Examples
| Example | Demonstrates |
|---|
examples/exploratory_research.md | Full 6-phase pipeline walkthrough |
examples/systematic_review.md | PRISMA-style literature review |
examples/policy_analysis.md | Applied comparative policy research |
examples/socratic_guided_research.md | Complete Socratic mode multi-turn dialogue (12 rounds) |
examples/handoff_to_paper.md | deep-research full mode handoff to academic-paper |
examples/review_mode.md | Review mode: 3-agent review pipeline for policy recommendation text |
examples/fact_check_mode.md | Fact-check mode: source verification of HEI claims with per-claim verdicts |
Output Language
Follows the user's language. Academic terminology kept in English. Socratic mode uses natural conversational style.
Anti-Patterns
Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes:
| # | Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Behavior |
|---|
| 1 | Confirmation bias in source selection | Only finding sources that support the hypothesis | Devil's Advocate checkpoint must include counter-evidence search |
| 2 | Cherry-picking evidence | Citing one supportive study while ignoring three contradicting ones | Report the full evidence landscape including conflicting findings |
| 3 | Vibe citing | Mixing elements from 2-3 real papers into a fabricated reference | Every reference must be verified independently; mashup fabrication is the hardest to detect |
| 4 | ⚠️ IRON RULE: Treating "difficult to verify" as acceptable | Marking a reference as "uncertain" instead of FAIL | Gray zone = FAIL. If you cannot confirm it exists, it does not go in the report |
| 5 | Skipping phases | Jumping to synthesis before completing source verification | Complete each phase fully; Phase N output is Phase N+1 input |
| 6 | Shallow Socratic mode | Giving answers disguised as questions ("Wouldn't you say X is true?") | Ask genuine questions that expose assumptions; never lead to predetermined conclusions |
| 7 | Source tier inflation | Treating a blog post as equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal | Apply evidence hierarchy strictly: Tier 1 (peer-reviewed) > Tier 2 (preprint) > Tier 3 (gray lit) |
Quality Standards
- ⚠️ IRON RULE: Every claim must have a citation — no unsupported assertions
- Evidence hierarchy — meta-analyses > RCTs > cohort studies > case reports > expert opinion
- Contradiction disclosure — if sources disagree, report both sides with evidence quality comparison
- Limitation transparency — every report must have an explicit limitations section
- AI disclosure — all reports include a statement that AI-assisted research tools were used
- Reproducibility — search strategies, inclusion criteria, and analytical methods must be documented for replication
- Socratic integrity — in socratic mode, never give direct answers; always guide through questions
Cross-Agent Quality Alignment
Unified definitions across all agents. ⚠️ IRON RULE: CRITICAL severity = issue that would invalidate a core conclusion or constitute academic misconduct. Requires immediate resolution.
See references/cross_agent_quality_definitions.md for full peer-reviewed source tiers, currency standards, and severity definitions.
Integration with Other Skills
This skill is domain-agnostic but can be combined with domain-specific skills:
deep-research + tw-hei-intelligence -> Evidence-based HEI policy research
deep-research + report-to-website -> Interactive research report
deep-research + podcast-script-generator -> Research podcast
deep-research + academic-paper -> Full research-to-publication pipeline
deep-research (socratic) + academic-paper (plan) -> Guided research + paper planning
deep-research (systematic-review) + academic-paper -> PRISMA systematic review paper
Version Info
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Skill Version | 2.7 |
| Last Updated | 2026-04-06 |
| Maintainer | Cheng-I Wu |
| Dependent Skills | academic-paper v1.0+ (downstream) |
Version History
See references/changelog.md for full version history.
