Skills shared-meta-research-methodology
Investigation flow (Glob -> Grep -> Read), evidence-based research with file:line references, structured output format for AI consumption. Use for pattern discovery, implementation research, and codebase investigation.
git clone https://github.com/agents-inc/skills
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/agents-inc/skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/dist/plugins/shared-meta-research-methodology/skills/shared-meta-research-methodology" ~/.claude/skills/agents-inc-skills-shared-meta-research-methodology && rm -rf "$T"
dist/plugins/shared-meta-research-methodology/skills/shared-meta-research-methodology/SKILL.mdResearch Methodology
Quick Guide: Investigation flow is Glob -> Grep -> Read. All claims require file:line evidence. Structured output format for AI consumption. Read-only operations only. Verify every path before reporting.
Detailed Resources:
- examples/core.md - Investigation templates, output formats, progress tracking
- reference.md - Decision frameworks, anti-patterns, quality checklist
<critical_requirements>
CRITICAL: Before Any Research
All research must be evidence-based with file:line references
(You MUST read actual code files before making any claims - never speculate about patterns)
(You MUST verify every file path exists using Read tool before including it in findings)
(You MUST include file:line references for all pattern claims)
(You MUST NOT attempt to write or edit any files - you are read-only)
(You MUST produce structured, AI-consumable findings that downstream agents can act on)
</critical_requirements>
Auto-detection: Pattern research, implementation discovery, architecture investigation, API cataloging
When to use:
- Discovering how patterns are implemented in a codebase
- Cataloging components, APIs, or architectural decisions
- Finding similar implementations to reference for new features
- Understanding existing conventions before implementation
Key patterns covered:
- Investigation flow (Glob -> Grep -> Read)
- Evidence-based claims with file:line references
- Structured output format for AI consumption
- Self-correction triggers for research quality
- Progress tracking for complex research
When NOT to use:
- When you need to implement code (research informs, doesn't replace implementation)
- When you need to create specifications (research feeds into specs, but doesn't produce them)
- When you need to review existing code for quality (research discovers patterns, doesn't judge them)
<philosophy>
Philosophy
Research is investigation, not speculation. Every claim must be backed by evidence from actual code files. The output format is designed for consumption by other AI agents, not humans - this means structured sections, explicit file paths, and actionable recommendations.
Core Research Principles:
- Evidence First - Never claim a pattern exists without reading the file
- Verify Paths - Every file path in findings must be confirmed with Read
- Be Specific - Line numbers, not vague references
- Be Actionable - Tell developers exactly which files to reference
- Be Honest - If you can't find something, say so
<patterns>
Core Patterns
Pattern 1: Investigation Flow (Glob -> Grep -> Read)
The three-step investigation flow ensures thorough and efficient research.
Flow Structure
1. GLOB - Find candidate files ├── Use file patterns (*.tsx, *store*, *auth*) ├── Target specific directories when known └── Cast wide net initially, narrow later 2. GREP - Search for keywords/patterns ├── Use content patterns (useQuery, export const) ├── Narrow down to relevant files └── Note frequency of pattern usage 3. READ - Examine key files completely ├── Don't skim - read files that matter ├── Note line numbers for key patterns └── Understand the full context
Why this flow: Glob finds files efficiently, Grep narrows to relevant content, Read provides complete understanding. This prevents speculation and ensures evidence-based claims.
For detailed code examples, see examples/core.md.
Pattern 2: Evidence-Based Claims
Every claim in research findings must have supporting evidence with file paths and line numbers.
Claim Structure
## Pattern: [Pattern Name] **File:** `/path/to/file.tsx:12-45` **Usage Count:** X instances found via Grep **Code Example:** ```typescript // From /path/to/file.tsx:15-25 [Actual code from the file] ``` **Verification:** Read file confirmed pattern exists at stated location
Why this matters: Downstream agents will use your research to implement features. Inaccurate or unverified claims will lead them astray.
For good/bad comparison examples, see examples/core.md.
Pattern 3: Structured Output Format
Research findings follow a consistent structure for AI consumption. Every output includes: Research Summary, Patterns Found (with file:line evidence), Files to Reference table, Recommended Approach, and Verification Checklist.
## Research Summary - Topic: [What was researched] - Type: [Pattern Discovery | Inventory | Implementation Research] - Files Examined: [count] - Paths Verified: [Yes/No] ## Patterns Found ### Pattern 1: [Name] - File: [path:lines] - Description: [Brief explanation] ...
Why structured: Other AI agents parse this output. Consistent structure enables reliable extraction of relevant information.
For the complete output template, see examples/core.md - Pattern 3.
</patterns><self_correction_triggers>
Self-Correction Checkpoints
If you notice yourself:
- Reporting patterns without reading files first -> STOP. Use Read to verify the pattern exists.
- Making claims about architecture without evidence -> STOP. Find specific file:line references.
- Attempting to write or edit files -> STOP. You are read-only. Produce findings instead.
- Providing generic advice instead of specific paths -> STOP. Replace with concrete file references.
- Assuming APIs without reading source -> STOP. Read the actual source file.
- Skipping file path verification -> STOP. Use Read to confirm every path you report.
- Expanding scope beyond the research question -> STOP. Answer what was asked, no more.
- Giving implementation opinions when asked for research -> STOP. Report findings, not recommendations.
</self_correction_triggers>
<post_action_reflection>
Post-Action Reflection
After each research action, evaluate:
- Did I verify all file paths exist before including them?
- Are my pattern claims backed by specific code examples?
- Have I included line numbers for key references?
- Is this research actionable for the consuming agent?
- Did I stay within the scope of the research question?
- Did I miss any obvious related patterns?
Only report findings when you have verified evidence for all claims.
</post_action_reflection>
<progress_tracking>
Progress Tracking
For complex research spanning multiple areas, use the progress tracking template to maintain orientation. Track files examined, patterns found, and gaps identified.
See examples/core.md - Pattern 6 for the full template.
</progress_tracking>
<integration>
Integration Guide
Research is read-only. Never write or edit files during research. Produce structured findings that other agents can act on.
Output consumers: Any agent that needs to understand codebase patterns before implementing, specifying, or reviewing code.
</integration><red_flags>
RED FLAGS
High Priority Issues:
- Claiming patterns without file:line evidence
- Including file paths that weren't verified with Read
- Speculating about code structure without investigation
- Providing implementation advice when asked for research
- Missing verification checklist in output
Medium Priority Issues:
- Vague line references ("around line 50" instead of "lines 45-67")
- Not reporting usage counts when available
- Skipping the Files to Reference section
- Not noting gaps or inconsistencies found
Common Mistakes:
- Assuming file locations from convention without checking
- Inferring patterns from file names without reading content
- Mixing research findings with opinions
- Expanding scope without asking
Gotchas & Edge Cases:
- Some patterns exist but are deprecated (check for
comments)@deprecated - Tests may show patterns that differ from production code
- Config files may override patterns in source code
- Monorepo patterns may vary by package
See reference.md for anti-pattern code examples and the quality checklist.
</red_flags>
<critical_reminders>
CRITICAL REMINDERS
All research must be evidence-based with file:line references
(You MUST read actual code files before making any claims - never speculate about patterns)
(You MUST verify every file path exists using Read tool before including it in findings)
(You MUST include file:line references for all pattern claims)
(You MUST NOT attempt to write or edit any files - you are read-only)
(You MUST produce structured, AI-consumable findings that downstream agents can act on)
Failure to follow these rules will produce inaccurate research that misleads downstream agents.
</critical_reminders>