Compétences deep-research-framework
📦
deep-research-framework
Révision du contenu r1 Sûr ⚙️ Commandes externes
Build Research Reports with Traceable Evidence
Research reports can hide weak sources, stale facts, and unsupported conclusions. This framework guides clear questions, independent verification, and conclusion-first writing with explicit uncertainty.
Prend en charge: Claude Codex Code(CC)
Installer avec mon Agent
Copiez cette demande dans votre Agent. Elle contient la page Skill de référence et le manifeste.
Demande d’agent
Review the Skillstore skill "deep-research-framework" from https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.Votre Agent doit toujours présenter son plan et demander toute confirmation exigée par la politique de sécurité.
Ressources lisibles par les agents
Utilisez ces liens lorsqu’un Agent IA, un crawler ou un script a besoin d’un contexte propre au lieu de lire toute la page.
Tester
Utilisation de « deep-research-framework ». Outline research on whether our team should adopt a new documentation platform.
RĂ©sultat attendu:
- Main question: Does the platform meet our documentation requirements?
- Sub-questions: What features are documented? What migration work is required? What costs are supported by current evidence?
- Primary sources: Official documentation, pricing pages, and measured trial results.
- Uncertainty: Actual migration effort and independent corroboration remain unresolved.
Utilisation de « deep-research-framework ». Assess a vendor availability claim supported by one undated brochure.
RĂ©sultat attendu:
- Conclusion: The vendor availability claim remains a single-source claim.
- Evidence: Only one undated vendor brochure was supplied.
- Verification gap: No independent measurements or dated supporting documents were provided.
- Reassessment condition: Dated operational evidence and independent corroboration could change this conclusion.
Audit de sécurité
Sûrv1 • 06/10/2026 Ouvrir le rapport versionné
The static command-execution finding is a false positive: SKILL.md lines 34-51 contain a fenced Markdown report outline. No evidence found of executable commands, data exfiltration intent, or prompt injection in the reviewed skill.
1
Fichiers analysés
60
Lignes analysées
0
Éléments à examiner
0
Faux positifs ignorés
Facteurs de risque
⚙️ Commandes externes (1)
Le dernier audit statique et sémantique terminé n’a détecté aucun constat de sécurité confirmé. Cela ne prouve pas que le skill est sans effets secondaires.
Audité par: codex
Partager et citer ce rapport
Partagez le rapport d’évaluation versionné, le badge neutre, la carte intégrable et les citations. Skillstore présente les preuves sans décider si ce Skill est sûr.
Copier le lien du rapport
https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportBadge Markdown
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework?utm_source=security_passport_badge)Badge HTML
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Carte intégrable
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>Citations académiques (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
Citation APA
alapha888. (2026). deep-research-framework security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1Citation BibTeX
@techreport{alapha888-alapha888-deep-research-framework-2026,
author = {alapha888},
title = {deep-research-framework security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "deep-research-framework security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "alapha888"
date-released: "2026-10-06"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:alapha888-deep-research-framework:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Score Skillstore
Pourquoi ce score Niveau de confiance des preuves: Moyen 55
Architecture
85
Maintenabilité
87
Contenu
65
Communauté
91
Conformité aux spécifications
Ce que vous pouvez créer
Compare Competitors
Structure a competitor comparison around dated product evidence, independent corroboration, and gaps in available information.
Investigate a Technical Topic
Prioritize original papers and official documentation, then distinguish supported conclusions from speculation.
Prepare an Evidence-Based Brief
Organize a policy question into focused sections with traceable sources and explicit uncertainty.
Essayez ces prompts
Start a Research Outline
Create a research outline for [topic]. Define one main question, up to three sub-questions, source tiers, and an uncertainty section.
Review Source Quality
Assess these sources for [question]: [sources]. Classify their tiers, check independence, flag undated facts, and identify claims that need corroboration.
Write a Comparative Report
Compare [option A] and [option B] using [provided evidence]. Lead with conclusions, cite numerical claims, date facts, and mark single-source claims.
Audit Conclusions and Uncertainty
Audit this report: [report and sources]. Check source independence, unsupported numbers, speculation, and stale facts. Revise conclusions and state what would invalidate them.
Bonnes pratiques
- Set the main question and source tiers before gathering information.
- Check that corroborating sources do not repeat the same original source.
- Date key facts and state missing evidence, speculation, and reassessment conditions.
Éviter
- Treating social posts or forum discussions as evidence for core conclusions.
- Presenting single-source claims, speculation, or undated facts as established current knowledge.
- Listing sources without clear conclusions or hiding unresolved questions.
Foire aux questions
Does this skill search the web automatically?
It defines a research workflow but includes no search implementation. Browsing depends on the host assistant and available tools.
Which sources should support conclusions?
Use primary sources and reputable secondary sources. Treat social posts, forums, and aggregators as leads rather than evidence.
How many sources does a key conclusion need?
Use at least two independent sources. Multiple sources repeating one origin do not count as independent corroboration.
What happens when only one source exists?
Label the conclusion as a single-source claim and note that independent verification is missing.
How should outdated information be handled?
Date every key fact. Treat undated information as possibly stale and explain how newer evidence could change the conclusion.
What should the final report contain?
Include core conclusions, sections ordered by conclusion, evidence, and sources, plus an uncertainty statement covering missing evidence and reassessment conditions.