rrrrrredy/research-toolkit

English · 简体中文
Turn a research question or existing material into a report with concrete judgments and traceable sources.
Use it for industry research, product comparisons, company analysis and technical research. Start a new study, revise an existing report against its sources, or update conclusions when new material arrives. Your agent researches and writes; Toolkit supplies the methods and optional workflow tools.
Start here · See a research case · Agent setup · Documentation
## Quick start
Send this request to an agent that can read the repository and your sources. No installation is needed to use the methods directly.
text
Use Research Toolkit: https://github.com/rrrrrredy/research-toolkit
Read SKILL.md and follow the methods needed for this task.
Question or revision request: [Include the audience and intended use.]
Scope and length: [Include the information cutoff and counting unit.]
Material: [Attach sources, links or an existing report, if available.]
Use the complete research methods as needed to develop evidence, comparisons, explanations and judgments.
Deliver the complete report with usable citations; include a short change note
when revising. Maintain working records yourself and state the checks performed.
Start research: one usage guide
One method set supports long-form and in-depth research, revisions and updates. The request determines scope, length and depth; the agent loads methods, maintains records and completes agreed checks as needed.
Only need to review an existing report? Use the standalone Research Review Skill. Toolkit already includes these review capabilities; existing users do not need a second installation.
Have a draft or new material? Revise or update existing research, reusing completed research and its sources.
## Research case
APIs or browsers for AI agents. An English report drawing on 11 primary sources to compare API calls, DOM automation and visual interaction through completion, recovery and cost.
Read the report · Initial draft · Sources · Reviews and revisions
A revision that changes the decision
Before:
> There is no benefit in preserving this split if the API later covers document generation with adequate permissions and result checking.
After:
> If the API later covers document generation with adequate permissions and result checking, the original coverage gap disappears. Retiring the browser step then depends on whether the expected maintenance and recovery savings justify migration and revalidation costs.
The review identified a missing counterexample: replacing a working browser step may cost more than the expected savings. The revision makes that trade-off part of the recommendation.
Explore the revision
Public-source analysis dated 10 October 2026, not a deployment test. Also read the Chinese office-agent comparison and its source and revision archive.
## Agent setup
| How you want to use it | Entry |
| Read the methods directly | Send the request above; for files or text-only chats, see agent setup. |