@wentorai/research-plugins 1.2.2 → 1.3.0

package/skills/research/deep-research/corvus-research-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -1,132 +0,0 @@
----
-name: corvus-research-guide
-description: "Multi-agent AI research with semantic search and citation snowballing"
-metadata:
-  openclaw:
-    emoji: "🐦‍⬛"
-    category: "research"
-    subcategory: "deep-research"
-    keywords: ["Corvus", "multi-agent", "semantic search", "citation snowballing", "research synthesis", "AI research"]
-    source: "https://github.com/corvus-research/corvus"
----
-
-# Corvus Research Guide
-
-## Overview
-
-Corvus is a multi-agent AI research system that combines semantic search, forward/backward citation snowballing, and synthesis to conduct thorough literature investigations. It iteratively expands search results by following citation chains, identifies research gaps, and generates structured research briefs with full provenance.
-
-## Architecture
-
-### Agent Pipeline
-
-```
-Query → Semantic Search Agent
-           ↓
-     Citation Snowball Agent (forward + backward)
-           ↓
-     Relevance Filter Agent
-           ↓
-     Synthesis Agent
-           ↓
-     Report with Citation Graph
-```
-
-### Key Features
-
-1. **Semantic search**: Uses embedding-based search across Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex
-2. **Citation snowballing**: Iteratively follows references (backward) and citations (forward) to discover related work
-3. **Relevance scoring**: AI-based relevance assessment at each expansion step
-4. **Provenance tracking**: Every claim linked to source papers
-5. **Gap identification**: Identifies under-explored research areas
-
-## Usage
-
-```python
-from corvus import ResearchAgent
-
-agent = ResearchAgent(
-    llm_provider="anthropic",
-    search_backends=["semantic_scholar", "openalex"],
-    max_snowball_depth=2,
-)
-
-# Conduct deep research
-result = agent.research(
-    query="What are the current approaches to continual learning "
-          "in large language models?",
-    initial_papers=20,
-    snowball_per_paper=5,
-)
-
-# Access results
-print(f"Papers found: {len(result.papers)}")
-print(f"Unique clusters: {len(result.clusters)}")
-print(f"\nSynthesis:\n{result.synthesis}")
-
-# Export citation graph
-result.export_graph("citation_network.gexf")
-
-# Export bibliography
-result.export_bibtex("references.bib")
-```
-
-### Snowballing Configuration
-
-```python
-agent = ResearchAgent(
-    snowball_config={
-        "max_depth": 3,           # Citation chain depth
-        "backward_limit": 10,     # References per paper
-        "forward_limit": 10,      # Citations per paper
-        "relevance_threshold": 0.7,  # Min relevance to continue
-        "year_filter": 2020,      # Only papers from 2020+
-    }
-)
-```
-
-### Research Modes
-
-```python
-# Broad survey mode
-result = agent.research(query, mode="survey",
-                        initial_papers=50)
-
-# Focused deep-dive
-result = agent.research(query, mode="focused",
-                        initial_papers=10,
-                        snowball_depth=3)
-
-# Gap analysis
-result = agent.research(query, mode="gap_analysis")
-# Returns underexplored subtopics and suggested directions
-```
-
-## Output Format
-
-```python
-# Structured research brief
-brief = result.generate_brief()
-
-# Contains:
-# - Research question
-# - Methodology (search strategy, databases, snowball depth)
-# - Key themes (clustered by topic)
-# - Timeline (research evolution over time)
-# - Gap analysis (underexplored areas)
-# - Bibliography (all papers with citation counts)
-
-brief.save("research_brief.md")
-```
-
-## Use Cases
-
-1. **Literature reviews**: Comprehensive coverage via snowballing
-2. **Research gap identification**: Find underexplored subtopics
-3. **Trend analysis**: Track research evolution through citation chains
-4. **Grant proposals**: Quick evidence of research need
-
-## References
-
-- [Corvus GitHub](https://github.com/corvus-research/corvus)
-- Wohlin, C. (2014). "Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies." *EASE 2014*.

package/skills/research/deep-research/deep-research-pro/SKILL.md

@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
----
-name: deep-research-pro
-description: "Multi-source deep research agent with verification and synthesis"
-metadata:
-  openclaw:
-    emoji: "🕵️"
-    category: "research"
-    subcategory: "deep-research"
-    keywords: ["deep research", "multi-source", "source verification", "research agent", "evidence synthesis", "fact checking"]
-    source: "https://github.com/AcademicSkills/deep-research-pro"
----
-
-# Deep Research Pro
-
-A professional-grade deep research methodology that coordinates multi-source information gathering, cross-reference verification, and structured synthesis. Designed for research tasks that require high confidence in factual accuracy, comprehensive coverage, and traceable evidence chains.
-
-## Overview
-
-Deep Research Pro implements an agent-based methodology where the research process is decomposed into specialized phases: query decomposition, parallel source gathering, cross-reference verification, contradiction resolution, and structured synthesis. Unlike simple search-and-summarize approaches, this skill emphasizes source triangulation, evidence grading, and explicit uncertainty marking.
-
-The methodology is particularly valuable for literature reviews, technology assessments, policy analyses, and any research task where decision-makers need to trust the completeness and accuracy of the findings. Every claim in the final output is linked to at least one verified source, with confidence levels assigned based on the quality and agreement of the evidence.
-
-## Research Agent Architecture
-
-### Phase 1: Query Decomposition
-
-```python
-def decompose_research_query(query: str) -> dict:
-    """
-    Break a complex research question into atomic sub-questions
-    that can be independently investigated.
-
-    Example:
-      Input: "What is the current state of quantum computing for
-              drug discovery, and which companies are leading?"
-
-      Output: {
-        'sub_questions': [
-          'What quantum computing methods are used in drug discovery?',
-          'What are the computational advantages over classical methods?',
-          'Which companies are actively working on quantum drug discovery?',
-          'What drugs or molecules have been studied using quantum methods?',
-          'What are the current limitations and timeline to practical use?'
-        ],
-        'cross_cutting_themes': [
-          'Cost-benefit vs classical computing',
-          'Regulatory considerations',
-          'Academic vs industry progress'
-        ],
-        'source_strategy': {
-          'academic': ['PubMed', 'arXiv', 'Google Scholar'],
-          'industry': ['company websites', 'press releases', 'patent databases'],
-          'grey': ['government reports', 'consulting firm analyses']
-        }
-      }
-    """
-    pass  # Implemented by the agent's reasoning
-```
-
-### Phase 2: Parallel Source Gathering
-
-For each sub-question, gather evidence from multiple independent source types:
-
-| Source Type | Examples | Strengths | Limitations |
-|------------|---------|-----------|-------------|
-| **Peer-reviewed** | Journal articles, conference papers | Rigorous review | Publication lag |
-| **Preprints** | arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN | Current | Not peer-reviewed |
-| **Institutional** | WHO, NIH, government agencies | Authoritative | May be conservative |
-| **Industry** | Company blogs, press releases | Current, practical | Biased toward own products |
-| **News/Media** | Science journalism, trade publications | Accessible | May oversimplify |
-| **Expert opinion** | Interviews, blog posts, talks | Nuanced | Subjective |
-
-### Phase 3: Source Verification
-
-```python
-def verify_source(source: dict) -> dict:
-    """
-    Assess the credibility and reliability of a single source.
-    """
-    verification = {
-        'source_id': source['id'],
-        'url': source['url'],
-        'checks': {}
-    }
-
-    # Check 1: Author credibility
-    verification['checks']['author'] = {
-        'identifiable': bool(source.get('author')),
-        'affiliated': bool(source.get('institution')),
-        'h_index_available': bool(source.get('h_index')),
-        'domain_expert': source.get('expertise_match', False)
-    }
-
-    # Check 2: Publication venue
-    verification['checks']['venue'] = {
-        'peer_reviewed': source.get('peer_reviewed', False),
-        'impact_factor': source.get('impact_factor'),
-        'known_predatory': source.get('predatory_flag', False)
-    }
-
-    # Check 3: Currency
-    verification['checks']['currency'] = {
-        'publication_year': source.get('year'),
-        'is_recent': source.get('year', 0) >= 2023,
-        'superseded': source.get('retracted', False)
-    }
-
-    # Check 4: Corroboration
-    verification['checks']['corroboration'] = {
-        'cited_by_count': source.get('citation_count', 0),
-        'independent_confirmation': source.get('replicated', False),
-        'consistent_with_consensus': source.get('consensus_aligned', None)
-    }
-
-    # Overall confidence score
-    score = sum([
-        verification['checks']['author']['identifiable'],
-        verification['checks']['venue']['peer_reviewed'],
-        not verification['checks']['venue']['known_predatory'],
-        verification['checks']['currency']['is_recent'],
-        verification['checks']['corroboration']['cited_by_count'] > 5
-    ]) / 5.0
-
-    verification['confidence'] = round(score, 2)
-    verification['grade'] = (
-        'A' if score >= 0.8 else
-        'B' if score >= 0.6 else
-        'C' if score >= 0.4 else 'D'
-    )
-    return verification
-```
-
-## Cross-Reference and Contradiction Resolution
-
-### Triangulation Protocol
-
-For each factual claim in the research output:
-
-1. **Identify the claim**: Extract a specific, testable statement.
-2. **Find supporting sources**: At least 2 independent sources.
-3. **Check for contradicting sources**: Actively search for disconfirming evidence.
-4. **Assess source quality**: Weight evidence by source grade (A > B > C > D).
-5. **Assign confidence level**: Based on evidence agreement and quality.
-
-```
-Confidence Levels:
-  HIGH:   3+ Grade A/B sources agree, no contradictions
-  MEDIUM: 2+ sources agree, minor contradictions or lower-quality sources
-  LOW:    Single source, or significant contradictions among sources
-  UNCERTAIN: Conflicting evidence of similar quality; state both positions
-```
-
-### Contradiction Handling
-
-When sources disagree:
-
-1. Check if the disagreement is due to different definitions, timeframes, or contexts.
-2. Check if one source has been superseded or corrected.
-3. If genuine disagreement exists, present both positions with their evidence.
-4. Note the disagreement explicitly: "Source A (Grade B, 2024) reports X, while Source B (Grade A, 2023) reports Y. The discrepancy may be due to [possible explanation]."
-
-## Structured Synthesis Output
-
-### Report Template
-
-```markdown
-# Research Report: [Topic]
-
-## Executive Summary
-[3-5 sentence overview of key findings with confidence levels]
-
-## Methodology
-- Sub-questions investigated: [list]
-- Sources consulted: [count by type]
-- Date range of sources: [range]
-- Verification standard: [triangulation with Grade B+ sources]
-
-## Findings
-
-### Finding 1: [Title]
-**Confidence: HIGH**
-[Description with inline source references]
-Sources: [Source1 (Grade A)], [Source2 (Grade B)], [Source3 (Grade A)]
-
-### Finding 2: [Title]
-**Confidence: MEDIUM**
-[Description]
-Note: [Source4] reports a conflicting finding. See Contradictions section.
-
-## Contradictions and Uncertainties
-[Explicit list of unresolved disagreements]
-
-## Gaps in Evidence
-[What could not be determined from available sources]
-
-## Source Registry
-[Full list of all sources with grades and verification details]
-```
-
-## Best Practices
-
-- Always search for disconfirming evidence, not just supporting evidence.
-- Never assign HIGH confidence to a claim supported by only one source, regardless of its quality.
-- Mark the date of your research prominently; findings may become outdated.
-- Distinguish between "no evidence found" and "evidence of absence."
-- When synthesizing, prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses over individual studies.
-- Keep the full source registry even if not all sources are cited in the final report.
-
-## References
-
-- Bates, M. J. (1989). The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques. *Online Review*, 13(5), 407-424.
-- Booth, A. (2006). Clear and Present Questions: Formulating Questions for Evidence-Based Practice. *Library Hi Tech*, 24(3), 355-368.
-- Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A Typology of Reviews. *Health Information and Libraries Journal*, 26(2), 91-108.

package/skills/research/deep-research/deep-research-work/SKILL.md

@@ -1,204 +0,0 @@
----
-name: deep-research-work
-description: "Combine web search, content analysis, and source verification"
-metadata:
-  openclaw:
-    emoji: "🌐"
-    category: "research"
-    subcategory: "deep-research"
-    keywords: ["web research", "content analysis", "source verification", "information extraction", "research workflow", "web scraping"]
-    source: "https://github.com/AcademicSkills/deep-research-work"
----
-
-# Deep Research Work
-
-A practical deep research workflow that combines web search, structured content analysis, and systematic source verification to produce comprehensive, trustworthy research outputs. Optimized for researchers who need to rapidly synthesize information from diverse online sources while maintaining academic standards of evidence quality.
-
-## Overview
-
-Academic research increasingly requires synthesizing information from beyond traditional journal databases: government datasets, technical documentation, industry reports, software repositories, news coverage, and expert commentary. Deep Research Work provides an operational workflow for conducting this kind of multi-source research efficiently while maintaining rigor. It covers search strategy formulation, content extraction, structured note-taking, source credibility assessment, and synthesis into coherent research narratives.
-
-The workflow is designed to be completed in a single focused session (2-8 hours) and produces a structured research document with full source attribution. It is particularly useful for rapid literature scans, technology landscape assessments, policy research, and interdisciplinary investigations where no single database covers the full scope.
-
-## Search Strategy Design
-
-### Query Expansion Technique
-
-```python
-def generate_search_queries(topic: str, context: dict) -> list:
-    """
-    Generate a comprehensive set of search queries using
-    systematic query expansion.
-
-    Expansion strategies:
-    1. Synonym expansion: use alternative terminology
-    2. Scope expansion: broaden/narrow the topic
-    3. Perspective expansion: different stakeholder views
-    4. Temporal expansion: historical and forward-looking
-    5. Geographic expansion: regional variations
-    """
-    base_queries = [topic]
-
-    # Synonym expansion
-    synonyms = context.get('synonyms', [])
-    for syn in synonyms:
-        base_queries.append(syn)
-
-    # Scope expansion
-    broader = context.get('broader_topic', '')
-    narrower = context.get('sub_topics', [])
-    if broader:
-        base_queries.append(f"{broader} {topic}")
-    for sub in narrower:
-        base_queries.append(f"{topic} {sub}")
-
-    # Perspective expansion
-    perspectives = ['benefits', 'risks', 'challenges', 'future',
-                    'criticism', 'comparison', 'case study']
-    for p in perspectives:
-        base_queries.append(f"{topic} {p}")
-
-    # Source-type targeting
-    source_types = ['systematic review', 'meta-analysis', 'white paper',
-                    'technical report', 'dataset', 'open source']
-    for st in source_types:
-        base_queries.append(f"{topic} {st}")
-
-    return list(set(base_queries))
-```
-
-### Database Selection Matrix
-
-| Source Type | Best Databases | When to Use |
-|------------|---------------|-------------|
-| Peer-reviewed articles | Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, PubMed | Core academic evidence |
-| Preprints | arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, medRxiv | Cutting-edge, pre-review findings |
-| Government/institutional | Data.gov, WHO, OECD, national statistics | Official data, policy context |
-| Technical documentation | GitHub, ReadTheDocs, official docs | Software, tools, methods |
-| Industry reports | McKinsey, Gartner, CB Insights | Market context, trends |
-| Patent databases | Google Patents, USPTO, Espacenet | Innovation landscape |
-| News and media | Google News, specialized trade press | Current events, context |
-
-## Content Extraction and Note-Taking
-
-### Structured Extraction Template
-
-For each source reviewed, extract the following:
-
-```yaml
-source_entry:
-  id: "S001"
-  url: "https://..."
-  title: "Title of the Source"
-  authors: ["Author A", "Author B"]
-  date: "2025-06"
-  type: "journal_article"  # or preprint, report, blog, etc.
-
-  extraction:
-    main_claim: "One sentence summarizing the key claim or finding"
-    evidence_type: "empirical"  # empirical, theoretical, anecdotal, opinion
-    methodology: "Randomized controlled trial, n=500"
-    key_data_points:
-      - "Finding 1: X increased by 23% (p < 0.01)"
-      - "Finding 2: No significant effect on Y"
-    limitations_noted: "Small sample from single institution"
-    relevant_quotes:
-      - page: 12
-        text: "Our results suggest that..."
-
-  assessment:
-    credibility: "high"  # high, medium, low
-    relevance: "high"    # high, medium, low
-    novelty: "medium"    # high, medium, low
-    bias_concerns: "Funded by industry; potential conflict of interest"
-```
-
-### Progressive Summarization
-
-Apply a layered note-taking approach:
-
-1. **Layer 1 - Capture**: Save the full source with metadata (URL, date, authors).
-2. **Layer 2 - Bold**: Highlight the most important passages (key findings, methods, conclusions).
-3. **Layer 3 - Highlight**: From the bolded text, mark the essential takeaways for your research question.
-4. **Layer 4 - Summary**: Write a 2-3 sentence summary in your own words.
-5. **Layer 5 - Remix**: Connect the finding to your other sources and your research question.
-
-## Source Verification Protocol
-
-### Credibility Assessment Checklist
-
-For each source, evaluate:
-
-- [ ] **Authority**: Who is the author/organization? What are their credentials?
-- [ ] **Accuracy**: Are claims supported by evidence? Can you verify the data?
-- [ ] **Currency**: When was it published? Is the information still valid?
-- [ ] **Coverage**: Does it address your question sufficiently?
-- [ ] **Objectivity**: Is there apparent bias? Who funded the work?
-- [ ] **Corroboration**: Do other independent sources support the same claims?
-
-### Red Flags for Low-Quality Sources
-
-| Red Flag | Action |
-|----------|--------|
-| No author attribution | Downgrade credibility; seek alternative source |
-| No date published | Treat as potentially outdated |
-| Extraordinary claims without evidence | Require independent corroboration |
-| Known predatory journal | Exclude from primary evidence |
-| Single anonymous blog post | Use only as lead to find primary sources |
-| Circular citations | Trace back to the original source |
-
-## Synthesis Workflow
-
-### From Notes to Narrative
-
-```
-Step 1: Cluster
-  Group extracted notes by theme or sub-question.
-  Use tags from your extraction template.
-
-Step 2: Compare
-  Within each cluster, compare findings across sources.
-  Note agreements, contradictions, and gaps.
-
-Step 3: Evaluate
-  Weight evidence by source credibility and recency.
-  Higher-quality sources take precedence when sources conflict.
-
-Step 4: Narrate
-  Write a synthesis paragraph for each cluster that:
-  - States the overall finding
-  - Cites the supporting sources
-  - Notes any caveats or contradictions
-  - Identifies remaining gaps
-
-Step 5: Integrate
-  Connect clusters into a coherent narrative.
-  Highlight cross-cutting themes and implications.
-```
-
-### Output Quality Checklist
-
-Before finalizing your research output:
-
-- [ ] Every factual claim has at least one source citation
-- [ ] Contradictory evidence is explicitly acknowledged
-- [ ] Source quality is visible (not all sources treated equally)
-- [ ] Gaps in knowledge are clearly identified
-- [ ] The search methodology is documented for reproducibility
-- [ ] Dates of all searches are recorded
-- [ ] The output answers the original research question
-
-## Best Practices
-
-- Set a time limit before starting. Research can expand indefinitely without constraints.
-- Use a reference manager (Zotero, Mendeley) from the start, even for informal research.
-- Save web pages as PDF or archive snapshots (Wayback Machine) to prevent link rot.
-- Distinguish between primary sources (original data/study) and secondary sources (reporting on the study).
-- When a source cites a finding, always try to trace back to the original source.
-- Document negative results: sources searched that did not yield relevant information.
-
-## References
-
-- Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). *Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review* (2nd ed.). Sage.
-- Forte, T. (2022). *Building a Second Brain*. Atria Books.
-- Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). *The Literature Review* (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.