Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Gather external knowledge the spec needs and distill it into §R — the durable research log — so build grounds in facts instead of hallucinating library behavior. Each finding cites a source; unsourced claims are flagged, never written as fact. Triggers when a spec decision hinges on a library/API/best practice the agent is unsure of, when the user says "research this", "what's the best lib for…", "check current best practice", or invokes /ck:research. Defers the §R write to the spec skill.
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 26% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 46% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -16% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 60% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | -41% | 0% |
Every finding cites a source. No source → flag it ?, never write a guess as fact.
"Process without library context gives you well-organized hallucinations." Build invents a plausible-but-wrong API & §B fills with avoidable bugs. Research is the external oracle: pull the real fact once, log it caveman, never re-derive.
/grill parked a ? that the outside world must answer.Skip when the build touches only code you already wrote. Research scales to the unknown, ⊥ to habit.
Turn the unknown into 1-3 concrete questions. Vague "research auth" → "JWT lib for Node ESM, maintained?" + "refresh-token rotation: current best practice?". A scoped question gets a citable answer; a vague one gets an essay.
Use web search / docs tools. Prefer primary sources: official docs, the repo, the RFC, the paper. Two independent sources beat one confident blog. For a big sweep, spawn a sub-agent so the raw pages never touch this context — it returns only the distilled finding + source.
Crush each answer to one caveman line + its source. Drop the prose. The §R row is the memory; the tab you read is not.
> R3|refresh token|rotate on use, revoke family on reuse-detect|datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6819#section-5.2.2.3
Emit the §R rows & hand to the spec skill to append. If a finding changes a constraint or interface, note the §C/§I edit for spec too. Research proposes; spec writes.
? in the finding & say so. Anunverified claim labeled honestly is fine; one disguised as fact is a future §B.
Done when every scoped question has a sourced §R row (or an honest ?), and no build decision still rests on an unchecked assumption. ⊥ research past the questions you scoped — that is just burning the attention budget.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.