@rudderhq/server 0.1.0-canary.0

package/resources/community-skills/deep-research/templates/report_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,433 @@
+# Research Report: [Topic]
+
+<!-- =============================================================================
+PROGRESSIVE FILE ASSEMBLY STRATEGY (2025 - Unlimited Length):
+
+This report is generated section-by-section using progressive file assembly.
+Each section is generated to APPROPRIATE depth (however many words needed) and
+written to file immediately using Write/Edit tools.
+
+WHY: Manages output token limits while maintaining quality throughout
+RESULT: Large reports (up to 20,000 words per skill run) - sections sized naturally by content
+
+CLAUDE CODE LIMIT: 32,000 output tokens (≈20,000 words max per run)
+For reports >20,000 words: Run skill multiple times for different parts
+
+GENERATION WORKFLOW:
+1. Generate Executive Summary → Write to file
+   (As long as needed for comprehensive summary)
+
+2. Generate Introduction → Edit/append to file
+   (As long as needed to establish context)
+
+3. Generate Finding 1 → Edit/append to file
+   (As long as needed to fully present evidence and analysis)
+
+4. Generate Finding 2 → Edit/append to file
+   (Each finding sized appropriately - some may need 300 words, others 1,500)
+
+5. Continue for ALL findings (no limit on number OR length per finding!)
+
+6. Generate Synthesis → Edit/append to file
+   (As long as needed for deep synthesis)
+
+7. Generate Limitations → Edit/append to file
+8. Generate Recommendations → Edit/append to file
+9. Generate Bibliography (ALL citations) → Edit/append to file
+10. Generate Methodology → Edit/append to file
+
+SIZING PRINCIPLE:
+- Each section should be as long as IT NEEDS TO BE
+- Simple finding? Maybe 400 words is enough
+- Complex multi-faceted finding? Could be 1,200 words
+- Let evidence and analysis determine length, not arbitrary targets
+- Only constraint: Keep each INDIVIDUAL generation under ~2,000 words to avoid output limits
+- If a section needs >2,000 words, break it into subsections and generate progressively
+
+CITATION TRACKING (CRITICAL):
+- Maintain running list in working memory: citations_used = [1, 2, 3, ...]
+- After each section: Add new citations to list
+- In Bibliography: Generate entry for EVERY citation in final list
+- NO gaps, NO ranges, NO placeholders
+
+============================================================================= -->
+
+<!-- WRITING STANDARDS (Apply to EACH section): -->
+<!-- - PRECISION: Each word deliberately chosen, carries intention -->
+<!-- - ECONOMY: No fluff, eliminate fancy grammar, unnecessary adjectives -->
+<!-- - CLARITY: Use exact numbers, specific data, precise technical terms -->
+<!-- - DIRECTNESS: State findings without embellishment -->
+<!-- - HIGH SIGNAL-TO-NOISE: Respect reader's time, dense information -->
+<!-- - ACCESSIBILITY: When analysis gets abstract, ground it in a concrete example, mini-case, counterexample, failure mode, or applied scenario -->
+<!-- Examples: "reduced mortality 23%" not "significantly improved outcomes" -->
+<!-- Examples: "5 RCTs (n=1,847)" not "several studies suggest" -->
+
+<!-- SOURCE ATTRIBUTION (CRITICAL - PREVENTS FABRICATION): -->
+<!-- EVERY factual claim MUST be followed by [N] citation in same sentence -->
+<!-- Use "According to [1]..." or "[1] reports..." for factual statements -->
+<!-- DISTINGUISH fact from synthesis: -->
+<!--   ✅ GOOD: "Mortality decreased 23% (p<0.01) in treatment group [1]." -->
+<!--   ❌ BAD: "Studies show mortality improved significantly." -->
+<!-- NO vague attributions like "research suggests" or "experts believe" -->
+<!-- ADMIT uncertainty: "No sources found for X" not fabricated citations -->
+<!-- LABEL speculation: "This suggests..." not "Research shows..." -->
+<!-- If you use a hypothetical illustration, label it explicitly as illustrative/hypothetical rather than citing it as sourced fact -->
+
+<!-- ANTI-TRUNCATION (CRITICAL - Each Section Must Be COMPLETE): -->
+<!-- ❌ FORBIDDEN: "Content continues...", "Due to length...", "[Sections X-Y...]" -->
+<!-- ✅ REQUIRED: Generate current section COMPLETELY (you're only writing 500 words!) -->
+<!-- ✅ REQUIRED: Write to file immediately, then move to next section -->
+<!-- Progressive assembly handles unlimited length - you handle quality per section -->
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+[Write 3-5 bullet points, 200-400 words total]
+- **Key Finding 1:** [Major discovery with specific data/metrics]
+- **Key Finding 2:** [Important insight with evidence]
+- **Key Finding 3:** [Critical conclusion with implications]
+- [Additional findings as needed]
+
+**Primary Recommendation:** [One clear sentence stating the main recommendation]
+
+**Confidence Level:** [High/Medium/Low with brief justification]
+
+---
+
+## Introduction
+
+### Research Question
+[State the original question clearly and completely]
+
+[Add 1-2 sentences providing context for why this question matters]
+
+### Scope & Methodology
+[2-3 paragraphs explaining:]
+- What specific aspects were investigated
+- What was included vs excluded from scope
+- What research methods were used (web search, academic sources, industry reports, etc.)
+- How many sources were consulted
+- Time period covered
+
+### Key Assumptions
+[List 3-5 important assumptions made during research]
+- Assumption 1: [Description and why it matters]
+- Assumption 2: [Description and why it matters]
+- [Continue...]
+
+---
+
+## Main Analysis
+
+<!-- CRITICAL: Write 4-8 detailed findings, each 600-2,000 words -->
+<!-- Each finding should have multiple paragraphs with evidence -->
+<!-- Include specific data, quotes, statistics, not vague statements -->
+<!-- PRECISION: Use exact numbers, specific metrics, no fluff words -->
+<!-- "mortality reduced 23%" not "significantly improved" -->
+<!-- "5 trials (n=1,847)" not "several studies" -->
+<!-- When helpful, each major finding should include at least one concrete example, mini-case, counterexample, failure mode, or applied scenario -->
+<!-- Prefer source-grounded examples. If using an illustrative hypothetical, label it clearly -->
+
+### Finding 1: [Descriptive Title That Captures the Key Point]
+
+[Opening paragraph: State the finding clearly and why it matters]
+
+[Body paragraphs:
+- Present detailed evidence
+- Include specific data, statistics, dates, numbers
+- Explain mechanisms, causes, or relationships
+- Discuss implications
+- Address nuances or exceptions
+]
+
+**Key Evidence:**
+- Data point 1 from Source A [1]
+- Data point 2 from Source B [2]
+- Conflicting view from Source C [3] and how it was resolved
+
+**Concrete Example / Mini-Case:**
+[Show how this finding plays out in a real sourced case when possible]
+[If no real case is available, provide a clearly labeled illustrative hypothetical]
+
+**Implications:**
+[1-2 paragraphs on what this finding means for the user's decision/understanding]
+
+**Sources:** [1], [2], [3], [4]
+
+---
+
+### Finding 2: [Descriptive Title]
+
+[Follow same detailed structure as Finding 1]
+[Minimum 300 words per finding]
+[Include multiple paragraphs with evidence]
+
+**Sources:** [5], [6], [7], [8]
+
+---
+
+### Finding 3: [Descriptive Title]
+
+[Continue with same detail level]
+
+**Sources:** [9], [10], [11]
+
+---
+
+### Finding 4: [Descriptive Title]
+
+[And so on... Include 4-8 major findings minimum]
+
+**Sources:** [12], [13], [14]
+
+---
+
+[Continue with additional findings as needed]
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis & Insights
+
+<!-- This section should be 500-1000 words -->
+<!-- Go beyond just summarizing - generate NEW insights -->
+
+### Patterns Identified
+
+[2-3 paragraphs identifying key patterns across findings]
+
+**Pattern 1: [Name]**
+[Explain the pattern in detail, cite which findings support it]
+
+**Pattern 2: [Name]**
+[Continue...]
+
+### Novel Insights
+
+[2-3 paragraphs of insights that go BEYOND what sources explicitly stated]
+
+**Insight 1: [Name]**
+[What you discovered by connecting information across sources]
+[Why this matters even though no single source said it explicitly]
+
+**Insight 2: [Name]**
+[Continue...]
+
+### Applied Scenario / Mini-Case
+
+[1-2 paragraphs translating the synthesis into a concrete situation]
+[Example: how these patterns would affect a product choice, policy decision, team workflow, or implementation path]
+[If hypothetical, label it clearly as illustrative]
+
+### Implications
+
+[2-3 paragraphs on what all this means]
+
+**For [User Context]:**
+[Specific implications for the user's situation/decision]
+
+**Broader Implications:**
+[Wider significance of these findings]
+
+**Second-Order Effects:**
+[What might happen as consequences of these findings]
+
+---
+
+## Limitations & Caveats
+
+<!-- Be honest and comprehensive about what's uncertain -->
+
+### Counterevidence Register
+
+<!-- Document findings that contradict or challenge main conclusions -->
+
+[2-3 paragraphs explaining contradictory evidence found during research]
+
+**Contradictory Finding 1:** [Description]
+- Source: [Citation]
+- Why it contradicts: [Explanation]
+- How resolved/interpreted: [Your analysis]
+- Impact on conclusions: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Contradictory Finding 2:** [Continue...]
+
+### Known Gaps
+
+[2-3 paragraphs explaining:]
+- What information was not available
+- What questions remain unanswered
+- What would strengthen this research
+
+**Gap 1:** [Description]
+- Why it's missing
+- How it affects conclusions
+- How to address it in future research
+
+**Gap 2:** [Continue...]
+
+### Assumptions
+
+[Revisit key assumptions from intro, now with more detail on their validity]
+
+**Assumption 1:** [Restate]
+- Evidence supporting it: [...]
+- Evidence challenging it: [...]
+- Overall validity: [...]
+
+### Areas of Uncertainty
+
+[2-3 paragraphs on:]
+- Where sources disagree
+- Where evidence is thin
+- Where extrapolation was necessary
+- What could change conclusions
+
+**Uncertainty 1:** [Topic]
+[Detailed explanation of what's uncertain and why]
+
+**Uncertainty 2:** [Continue...]
+
+---
+
+## Recommendations
+
+<!-- Make this actionable and specific -->
+<!-- At least one recommendation should include a concrete implementation scenario, rollout sketch, or failure-avoidance case when useful -->
+
+### Immediate Actions
+
+[3-5 specific actions the user should take NOW]
+
+1. **[Action Title]**
+   - What: [Specific action]
+   - Why: [Rationale based on findings]
+   - How: [Implementation steps]
+   - Timeline: [When to do this]
+   - Example implementation scenario: [Show how this action would look in practice]
+
+2. **[Continue with similar detail...]**
+
+### Next Steps
+
+[3-5 actions for the near-term future (1-3 months)]
+
+1. **[Step Title]**
+   - What: [Specific next step]
+   - Why: [Rationale]
+   - How: [Execution path]
+   - Example scenario: [Concrete near-term use case]
+
+### Further Research Needs
+
+[3-5 areas where additional research would be valuable]
+
+1. **[Research Topic]**
+   - What to investigate: [Specific question]
+   - Why it matters: [Connection to current findings]
+   - Suggested approach: [How to research it]
+
+---
+
+## Bibliography
+
+<!-- ============================================================================ -->
+<!-- CRITICAL: Generate COMPLETE bibliography with ALL sources cited in report   -->
+<!-- DO NOT use placeholders like "[8-75] Additional citations" or "etc."        -->
+<!-- DO NOT use "...continue..." or "[Continue with all sources...]"             -->
+<!-- EVERY citation [N] in report body MUST have corresponding entry here        -->
+<!-- If report cites [1]-[25], bibliography MUST contain all 25 complete entries -->
+<!-- Format: [N] Author/Organization (Year). "Title". Publication. URL           -->
+<!-- ============================================================================ -->
+
+[1] Author Name or Organization ([YEAR]). "Full Title of Article or Paper". Publication Name or Website. https://full-url.com (Retrieved: [CURRENT_DATE])
+
+[2] Second Author ([YEAR]). "Second Article Title". Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi-or-url.com (Retrieved: [CURRENT_DATE])
+
+<!-- Add ALL remaining citations [3] through [N] here -->
+<!-- Standard reports: 15-30 sources | Deep/UltraDeep: 30-50 sources -->
+<!-- Write each entry completely - NO ranges, NO "etc.", NO placeholders -->
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: Methodology
+
+### Research Process
+
+[2-3 paragraphs describing the research process in detail]
+
+**Phase Execution:**
+- Phase 1 (SCOPE): [What was done]
+- Phase 2 (PLAN): [What was done]
+- Phase 3 (RETRIEVE): [What was done]
+- [Continue for all phases executed]
+
+### Sources Consulted
+
+**Total Sources:** [Number]
+
+**Source Types:**
+- Academic journals: [Number]
+- Industry reports: [Number]
+- News articles: [Number]
+- Government/regulatory: [Number]
+- Documentation: [Number]
+- [Other categories]
+
+**Geographic Coverage:**
+[If relevant, note geographic distribution of sources]
+
+**Temporal Coverage:**
+[Date range of sources, recency distribution]
+
+### Verification Approach
+
+[2-3 paragraphs explaining:]
+
+**Triangulation:**
+- How claims were verified across multiple sources
+- Minimum sources required per major claim: 3
+- How contradictions were handled
+
+**Credibility Assessment:**
+- How source quality was evaluated
+- Scoring system used (0-100)
+- Average credibility score: [Number]/100
+- Distribution: [High/medium/low source counts]
+
+**Quality Control:**
+- Validation checks performed
+- Issues found and corrected
+- Final quality metrics
+
+### Claims-Evidence Table
+
+<!-- Explicit mapping of major claims to supporting sources -->
+
+| Claim ID | Major Claim | Evidence Type | Supporting Sources | Confidence |
+|----------|-------------|---------------|-------------------|------------|
+| C1 | [First major claim from findings] | [Primary data / Meta-analysis / Expert opinion] | [1], [2], [3] | High / Medium / Low |
+| C2 | [Second major claim] | [Evidence type] | [4], [5], [6] | High / Medium / Low |
+| C3 | [Third major claim] | [Evidence type] | [7], [8] | High / Medium / Low |
+| ... | [Continue for all major claims] | ... | ... | ... |
+
+**Confidence Levels:**
+- **High**: 3+ independent sources, consistent findings, strong methodology
+- **Medium**: 2 sources OR single high-quality source with minor contradictions
+- **Low**: Single source OR significant contradictions in evidence
+
+---
+
+## Report Metadata
+
+**Research Mode:** [Quick/Standard/Deep/UltraDeep]
+**Total Sources:** [Number]
+**Word Count:** [Approximate count]
+**Research Duration:** [Time taken]
+**Generated:** [Date and time]
+**Validation Status:** [Passed with X warnings / Passed without warnings]
+
+---
+
+<!-- END OF TEMPLATE -->
+<!-- Remember: Write COMPREHENSIVE, DETAILED reports -->
+<!-- Target 2,000-5,000 words minimum, more for deep modes -->
+<!-- Include specific data, evidence, and analysis throughout -->

package/resources/community-skills/skill-creator/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+---
+name: skill-creator
+description: |
+  Create new skills, improve existing skills, and evaluate whether a skill definition is actually doing useful work.
+---
+
+# Skill Creator
+
+Use this skill when the task is to create a skill, refine a skill, or judge whether a skill definition should be changed.