Skills deep-research-framework
📦
deep-research-framework
Content revision r1 Safe ⚙️ External commands
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.
Supports: Claude Codex Code(CC)
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Agent request
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.Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.
Agent-readable resources
Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.
Test it
Using "deep-research-framework". Outline research on whether our team should adopt a new documentation platform.
Expected outcome:
- 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.
Using "deep-research-framework". Assess a vendor availability claim supported by one undated brochure.
Expected outcome:
- 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.
Security Audit
Safev1 • 10/6/2026 Open versioned report
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
Files scanned
60
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (1)
No confirmed security findings were detected by the latest completed static and semantic audit. This does not prove the skill has no side effects.
Audited by: codex
Share & cite this report
Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.
Copy report link
https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<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>Embed card
<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>Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA citation
alapha888. (2026). deep-research-framework security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-deep-research-framework/audits/1BibTeX citation
@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"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: Medium 55
Architecture
85
Maintainability
87
Content
65
Community
91
Spec Compliance
What You Can Build
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.
Try These 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.
Best Practices
- 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.
Avoid
- 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.
Frequently Asked 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.