A RESEARCH TOOLKIT FOR AI AGENTS

Research
Toolkit.

Help AI agents write research reports with concrete judgments, traceable sources, and independent review.

MethodsWorkflow toolsIndependent review
RESEARCH CASE

Office agent research in China

Creating a file, editing an existing object, and changing business state are different deliverables. A report is checked mainly for content quality; updating a sales ledger must preserve fields and calculations; sending a quotation or submitting an approval changes other people's work.
Historical reportRead the report ↗

Report excerpt

Office agent research in China

Changes in one office-agent report: clearer prose, added facts, and narrower inferences.

Full report ↗

The opening of the workspace section moves from a broad value claim to how the products organize work.

Replace rhetorical setup with actions and comparison criteria.

The final report shortens the rhetorical setup and a vague closing, then names tools, context, and device availability.

Initial draftTranslated excerpt

The value of independent office agents lies not in moving a chat box onto the desktop, but in bringing materials, execution, and revisions into one stretch of work. For people who frequently organize files from different sources, this approach can reduce uploading, downloading, and switching tools. Yet keeping files on a computer does not mean tasks run continuously or all processing happens offline. The differences between Kimi Work and Coze show that independent workspaces do not share a single implementation.

The opening frames value through a rhetorical contrast; the closing only says implementations differ.

Original passage (Chinese) ↗

Final reportTranslated excerpt

Independent office agents organize materials, execution, and revisions in one workspace. For people who frequently organize files from different sources, this approach can reduce uploading, downloading, and switching tools. Continuous operation and the location of data processing still depend on the implementation. The differences between Kimi Work and Coze center on who supplies tools, who retains context, and who keeps the device online.

The report states the mechanism directly and identifies comparison criteria, while retaining its conditions.

Original passage (Chinese) ↗

What changed

Shortened
Remove the rhetorical setup and state how materials, execution, and revisions share a workspace.
Made specific
Turn “implementations differ” into tools, context, and device availability. Keep the conditional benefit of less file handling.

Historical report. Information through September 9, 2026; some dynamic documents were checked on September 10. Public-source research without installed-product testing. These versions are not a controlled with/without-toolkit experiment.

RESEARCH REQUEST

Usage

Send this request to an agent that can read the repository and access your sources.

If repository access is unavailable, upload the files or paste the instructions. Native Skill installation is optional.

Ways to provide the toolkit
COPYABLE RESEARCH REQUEST
Use Research Toolkit for this task:
https://github.com/rrrrrredy/research-toolkit

Research office agents available to users in China in 2026.
Compare Kimi Work, Coze, Feishu / Doubao Work, Wukong,
WPS, and WorkBuddy. Write for AI product and workplace leads.

Explain which files and business objects each product changes,
where tasks run, and how models, tools, context, permissions,
and human involvement affect delivery and rework.

Use information available as of [DATE]. Cite important claims.
Distinguish company statements, media experiences, and measured
outcomes. Explain what could overturn your conclusions.

Read SKILL.md. Clarify missing requirements and agree on an
outline before collecting sources.

Replace [DATE] and adapt the topic and audience. This request is based on the archived case brief; a new run may reach different conclusions.

File and text guide

The research workflow.

From the brief to the report, each stage has a concrete output.

Research method

Develop the analysis

Link facts to explanations, tradeoffs, and implications.

Claim records ↗

The links provide this case's research materials. The historical report did not run through the current MCP version.

Methods

Scope, sources, reasoning, writing, and review. Detailed guidance is loaded by your agent when needed.

Workflow tools

Create tasks, retain progress, run independent reviews, and check delivery conditions.

Use with your agent

Choose the input your interface supports. Plugin and MCP tools are optional.

Repository linkProvide the repository URL and research request. The agent needs to read SKILL.md and the required references.Repository use
Files or attachmentsProvide SKILL.md and the reference files from the downloaded repository. Supply further methods when needed.Download files
Pasted textPaste the full entry instructions and the reference sections needed for the task. A URL alone is insufficient without repository access.Chat-only use
Native SkillFor repeated use, install the complete toolkit through the host’s supported Skill mechanism.Skill setup
Optional workflow tools
PluginA bundle of the methods and local MCP tools for hosts that support its package format and local execution.Installation guide
MCPFive local tools for task records, progress, guidance, review calls, and delivery checks.Connect MCP

Reading or uploading the methods does not start MCP or run an independent review. The tools need local stdio MCP support; the plugin also requires its package format.

Independent review needs a separate reviewer with the report and evidence. The automated executor defaults to Codex CLI or a configured review command; the author agent does not need to be Codex. Review calls use the configured model account and send it the supplied material.

Watch the case walkthrough

A recording of the case browser and request copying.