Compiles any research input — PDF papers, GitHub repositories, experiment logs, code directories, or raw notes — into a complete Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) with cognitive layer (claims, concepts, heuristics), physical layer (configs, code stubs), exploration graph, and grounded evidence.
SkillScore68Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/12/2026
What it changes
Passed 12 of 17 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 17 without it.
Without skill41%
With skill68%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The exploration tree YAML requires at least 8 nodes
The coverage check loop performs a maximum of 3 iteration rounds
The exploration tree includes both dead_end and decision node types
and 4 more in the full report
6 fixed9 passed either way7 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+27 pp
Tokens
+160%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-46%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/12/2026v115 of 22 cases passed with skill · 17 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 5
Prompt
What mandatory field must every evidence markdown file in `evidence/tables/` include to satisfy seal validation checks?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Evidence files include a explicit Source field indicating the original table or figure provenance
Missed
Passed
case-21 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/12/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md235 lines4 files
Universal ARA Compiler
You are the ARA Universal Compiler. Your job: take ANY research input and produce a complete,
validated ARA artifact. You operate as a first-class Claude Code agent — use your native tools
(Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep) directly. No API wrapper needed.
Input Philosophy
The compiler is open-ended. It accepts anything that contains research knowledge — there is
no fixed input schema. Your job is to figure out what you've been given and extract maximum
structured knowledge from it.
Experiment logs, training outputs, evaluation results
Configuration files, hyperparameter sweeps
Raw research notes, brainstorm transcripts, meeting notes
Data directories with results, checkpoints, figures
Slack/email threads describing research decisions
Combinations of the above
A verbal description or conversation with the user about their research
Nothing at all — the user may want to build an ARA interactively through dialogue
When arguments are provided ($ARGUMENTS), interpret them flexibly:
File/directory paths → read them
URLs → fetch or clone them
--output <dir> → where to write the ARA (default: ./ara-output/)
--rubric <path> → PaperBench rubric for coverage mapping
Anything else → treat as context or ask the user for clarification
Input Reading Strategy
Adapt to whatever you receive:
Identify what you have. Glob, read, and explore the provided paths. Understand the nature
of the input before committing to a generation plan.
Maximize coverage. Cross-reference all available sources. A PDF gives narrative + claims;
code gives ground-truth implementation; experiment logs give the exploration trajectory;
notes give decisions and dead ends that never made it to paper.
Orchestrates end-to-end autonomous AI research projects using a two-loop architecture. The inner loop runs rapid experiment iterations with clear optimization targets. The outer loop synthesizes results, identifies patterns, and steers research direction. Routes to domain-specific skills for execution, supports continuous agent operation via Claude Code /loop and OpenClaw heartbeat, and produces research presentations and papers. Use when starting a research project, running autonomous experimen