A RESEARCH TOOLKIT FOR AI AGENTS
Help AI agents write research reports with concrete judgments, traceable sources, and explicit review choices.
The central trade-off is how much work remains after sending a command: checking the resulting state, resolving uncertain outcomes and maintaining the integration when the application changes. That work determines whether a successful demonstration becomes a repeatable business process.
Report excerpt
Original English research, with primary sources, a retained first draft, and a documented review correction.
Section 5 asks when a hybrid API-and-browser workflow should change.
The review identified a missing counterexample: a working browser step can remain worthwhile when replacing and revalidating it costs more than the expected savings.
There is no benefit in preserving this split if the API later covers document generation with adequate permissions and result checking.
The draft treated closing a coverage gap as sufficient reason to retire the browser step.
Full passage ↗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 revision separates capability coverage from the economics of changing a working system.
Full passage ↗Public-source analysis, 10 October 2026. The workflow is illustrative; no deployment or comparative performance experiment was conducted. This case does not establish a general Toolkit quality advantage.
RESEARCH REQUEST
Give your agent a research question and ask it to read SKILL.md, the shared entry point for the research methods.
If repository access is unavailable, upload the files or paste the instructions. Native Skill installation is optional.
Ways to provide the toolkitUse Research Toolkit for this task: https://github.com/rrrrrredy/research-toolkit Read SKILL.md first, then follow its links to the methods needed for each research stage. My research request: [Describe your research question, intended use, and desired output.] Use the conversation to clarify essential gaps and establish the brief and outline before collecting sources. Follow the selected profile's research, writing, review, and delivery instructions.
Replace the bracketed text with your research request. Include any known audience, scope, length, time cutoff, or required sources.
Setup for your agentFrom the brief to the report, each stage has a concrete output.
Audience, scope, decisions, and an agreed outline.
Research brief ↗Primary sources, access limits, and contrary evidence.
Source records ↗Link facts to explanations, tradeoffs, and implications.
Claim records ↗Examine the whole report and its supporting evidence.
Review records ↗Concrete judgments, traceable sources, and honest limits.
Complete report ↗The links open this case's brief, source and claim records, complete reviews, and final article.
Scope, sources, reasoning, writing, and review. Detailed guidance is loaded by your agent when needed.
Create tasks, retain progress, run independent reviews, and check delivery conditions.
Choose the input your interface supports. Plugin and MCP tools are optional.
| Repository link | Provide the repository URL and research request. The agent needs to read SKILL.md and the required references. | Repository use |
|---|---|---|
| Files or attachments | Provide SKILL.md and the reference files from the downloaded repository. Supply further methods when needed. | Download files |
| Pasted text | Paste the full entry instructions and the reference sections needed for the task. A URL alone is insufficient without repository access. | Chat-only use |
| Native Skill | For repeated use, install the complete toolkit through the host’s supported Skill mechanism. | Skill setup |
| Plugin | A bundle of the methods and local MCP tools for hosts that support its package format and local execution. | Installation guide |
|---|---|---|
| MCP | Six 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.
Full uses a degraded self-review when no reviewer backend is configured. Choose an external command or compatible endpoint for another opinion; independent review requires a separate context. External calls send the supplied materials to that service and consume its account usage. Lite retains a final checklist and skips review.
A recording of the product questions, passage changes, reasoning, and review decisions.