agent-research

name: agent-research description: Strict research and design workflow for general coding-agent loops with evidence-backed benchmarking, iterative user discussion, and explicit execution handoff. version: 1.1.0 author: Pulse Coder Team

Agent Research & Design Skill (Strict, English)

Goal

This skill is for systematically researching and designing a general Agent Loop / Coding Agent capability model, ensuring:

1. Atomic capabilities are clearly defined and implementable.
2. Benchmarking against mainstream implementations (pi-mono / OpenCode / Claude Code) is evidence-backed.
3. The proposed design is discussion-ready and iteration-friendly.
4. No implementation starts before explicit user confirmation.

Non-Negotiable Rules

1. Research first, design second, execution last.
   Do not move into implementation before research + design convergence.

2. All key claims must be source-traceable.
   Every important claim must include URL citations. If not, mark as assumption/speculation.

3. Separate facts from interpretation.
   Explicitly label output as:

   • Fact
   • Inference
   • Proposal

4. Minimum research depth is mandatory.

   • At least 8 rounds of search, at most 12 rounds.
   • At least 12 unique source URLs.
   • Must cover 3 required targets: pi-mono, OpenCode, Claude Code.

5. Atomic capabilities must follow a standard schema.
   Each capability must include: definition, input, output, trigger, failure mode, recovery strategy, success metrics.

6. No execution without explicit user Yes.
   Always ask for final execution confirmation before implementation actions.

Required Execution Flow

Phase 0: Scope Alignment

Before research starts, clarify:

• Target context (CLI agent / IDE agent / server agent)
• Constraints (time, budget, model limits, tool permissions)
• Deliverable depth (concept paper / technical design / executable task plan)

If missing info exists, ask questions first.

Phase 1: Atomic Capability Design

Draft the capability map first, including at least:

• Task Understanding
• Planning
• Tool Use
• Context Management
• Code Execution Loop
• Reflection / Critique
• Safety & Guardrails
• Memory
• Human-in-the-loop
• Evaluation & Telemetry

For each capability, provide:

• Name
• Definition
• Input
• Output
• Trigger
• Tool/Context dependencies
• Failure mode
• Recovery strategy
• Success metrics (prefer measurable metrics)

Phase 2: External Benchmarking

Mandatory Targets

• pi-mono
• OpenCode
• Claude Code

Optional Targets

• Cursor Agent
• Aider
• Copilot CLI

Research Constraints

• 8-12 progressive search rounds (overview → architecture → loop mechanics → trade-offs → validation)
• For each round, report: objective, queries, new findings, open questions
• At least 12 unique URLs
• Source priority: official docs > source repo/code > technical blogs > secondary summaries
• Cross-validate key claims with at least 2 sources (otherwise mark as low confidence)

Phase 3: Synthesis & Proposal

Output must include:

1. Atomic capability catalog (standardized definitions)
2. Benchmark matrix (implementation comparison)
3. Recommended architecture (MVP / v1 / v2)
4. Core trade-offs (complexity, cost, robustness, extensibility)
5. Risk register with mitigation strategies
6. Open decisions list (5-10 items)

Also explicitly mark:

• what is fact,
• what is inference,
• what is proposal.

Phase 4: Discussion Loop with User

In each discussion iteration:

• Provide “current recommendation + 3-5 key questions”
• Maintain status buckets:
  • Confirmed
  • Pending
  • Changed
• Publish a decision snapshot at the end of each iteration

Move to final confirmation when pending items ≤ 2, or user says design is converged.

Phase 5: Execution Confirmation

Use an explicit confirmation question:

“The design is now largely converged. Do you want me to enter execution mode? Options:

1. detailed technical design,
2. task breakdown & timeline,
3. code skeleton,
4. direct implementation.”

• If user confirms: re-confirm scope boundaries, then execute.
• If user declines: deliver finalized design artifacts and next-step recommendations only.

Required Output Artifacts

A. Capability Spec Table

B. Benchmark Matrix

C. Evidence Ledger

D. Roadmap

• MVP (2-4 weeks)
• v1 (1-2 months)
• v2 (continuous optimization)

E. Decision Log

• Confirmed
• Pending
• Changed

Completion Criteria

This skill is complete only when all items are satisfied:

• 8+ research rounds completed
• 12+ unique sources provided
• Atomic capabilities standardized
• Benchmark matrix + evidence ledger delivered
• At least one user discussion iteration completed
• Explicit execution confirmation asked and recorded