multi-source-research
Research Topics Across Web, Docs, and Code
Research questions often require current web evidence, local documentation, and code examples. This skill coordinates those sources and synthesizes findings with clear confidence labels.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "multi-source-research" from https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/consiliency-research/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 "multi-source-research". Quick mode: Is WebSocket authentication part of the initial HTTP handshake?
Expected outcome:
WebSocket authentication commonly uses the initial HTTP upgrade request. Confidence: HIGH. Sources include official protocol guidance and matching documentation.
Using "multi-source-research". Standard mode: Research token validation practices for WebSocket services.
Expected outcome:
The report compares current guidance with local code patterns. It marks supported findings as HIGH confidence and identifies one unresolved source conflict.
Using "multi-source-research". Extensive mode: Compare two coding assistants for a large engineering team.
Expected outcome:
The analysis compares architecture, security, maintenance, workflow, and cost. It recommends one option, cites supporting sources, and lists remaining evidence gaps.
Security Audit
SafeAll 11 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown code fences, inline paths, and file references. The skill requests web and local searches, but contains no executable commands, credential handling, prompt injection, or exfiltration instructions.
Risk Factors
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/consiliency-research/audits/11?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/consiliency-research/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/consiliency-research.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
Consiliency. (2026). multi-source-research security audit report (audit version 11) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research/audits/11BibTeX citation
@techreport{consiliency-consiliency-research-2026,
author = {Consiliency},
title = {multi-source-research security audit report (audit version 11)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {11},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research/audits/11},
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: "multi-source-research security audit report (audit version 11)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "Consiliency"
date-released: "2026-07-23"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/consiliency-research/audits/11"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:consiliency-research:audit:11"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: HighWhat You Can Build
Evaluate a Technical Approach
Compare official guidance, local documentation, and implementation examples before selecting a library or architecture.
Build Evidence-Based Documentation
Gather current sources, code references, and conflicting viewpoints before drafting technical documentation.
Prepare a Decision Brief
Research several options, assess source agreement, and produce an actionable recommendation with evidence gaps.
Try These Prompts
Use quick mode to verify [claim]. Cite the strongest web and documentation sources, then state one confidence level.
Use standard mode to research [technical topic]. Compare web guidance with local documentation and code examples. Highlight disagreements.
Use extensive mode to compare [option A] and [option B] for [context]. Evaluate architecture, implementation, risks, costs, and source conflicts.
Research [complex question] in extensive mode. Assign distinct source angles, cross-validate every major claim, identify evidence gaps, and recommend further research.
Best Practices
- Choose the smallest mode that provides enough source coverage.
- Give the query a clear scope, date range, and decision context.
- Review low-confidence and conflicting findings before using recommendations.
Avoid
- Do not treat a single source as settled evidence.
- Do not use extensive mode for simple definitions or routine lookups.
- Do not present incomplete results without noting timeouts or missing sources.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which research modes are available?
Which sources can the skill research?
How are confidence labels assigned?
What happens when web search is unavailable?
Does the skill modify project files?
How long does extensive mode take?
Developer Details
Author
ConsiliencyLicense
MIT
Skillstore revision
r2
Version notice
The author did not declare a version.
Ref
c43861a65bb95efcae259cd161c9d6f4dc7eec6f
Maintenance freshness
7/24/2026
Usage
9 downloads · 244 views
File structure