feat(skills): add deep-research skill
Copy deep-research skill from local Qoder installation to config repo for version control
This commit is contained in:
281
skills/deep-research/examples/handoff_to_paper.md
Normal file
281
skills/deep-research/examples/handoff_to_paper.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
|
||||
# Handoff Example: deep-research → academic-paper
|
||||
|
||||
This example demonstrates how deep-research full mode, after completing research, hands off to academic-paper to begin paper writing.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario Setup
|
||||
|
||||
The user has completed deep-research full mode on the topic "AI-Assisted Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Strategies in East Asian Universities." Below is a summary of the research outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## deep-research Output Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Research Question Brief (from research_question_agent)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### Primary Research Question
|
||||
How do East Asian universities (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea) differ in their
|
||||
implementation strategies for AI-assisted quality assurance, and what factors
|
||||
explain the variation in adoption patterns?
|
||||
|
||||
### FINER Assessment
|
||||
| Criterion | Score | Justification |
|
||||
|-------------|-------|---------------|
|
||||
| Feasible | 4/5 | Public data + policy documents available |
|
||||
| Interesting | 5/5 | Timely: AI policy divergence across similar systems |
|
||||
| Novel | 4/5 | Few cross-national comparisons in this space |
|
||||
| Ethical | 5/5 | No human subjects; public policy analysis |
|
||||
| Relevant | 5/5 | Directly informs HEEACT and peer agencies |
|
||||
| **Average** | **4.6/5** | |
|
||||
|
||||
### Sub-questions
|
||||
1. What AI-QA tools and frameworks have been adopted by accreditation agencies
|
||||
in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea?
|
||||
2. What institutional and policy factors facilitate or hinder AI-QA adoption?
|
||||
3. To what extent do implementation outcomes align with stated policy objectives?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Methodology Blueprint (from research_architect_agent)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
- Paradigm: Pragmatist (comparative policy analysis)
|
||||
- Method: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) + document analysis
|
||||
- Data sources:
|
||||
- Policy documents (3 countries' QA frameworks)
|
||||
- Accreditation agency reports (HEEACT, JUAA/NIAD-QE, KCUE)
|
||||
- Published case studies and conference proceedings
|
||||
- Analytical framework: Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers) +
|
||||
Institutional Isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell)
|
||||
- Validity: Triangulation across document types + member checking
|
||||
with QA practitioners
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Annotated Bibliography (from bibliography_agent)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
23 sources identified, 18 retained after quality screening:
|
||||
- 6 peer-reviewed articles (Level II-III evidence)
|
||||
- 4 accreditation agency reports (Level IV)
|
||||
- 3 policy documents (Level IV)
|
||||
- 3 conference proceedings (Level V)
|
||||
- 2 institutional case studies (Level V)
|
||||
|
||||
Key themes identified:
|
||||
- AI adoption maturity gap (Taiwan > Korea > Japan in QA applications)
|
||||
- Regulatory divergence (Japan's cautious approach vs Korea's top-down push)
|
||||
- Data infrastructure as prerequisite (not just technology)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Synthesis Report (from synthesis_agent)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Core Findings
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Adoption patterns cluster into 3 models**:
|
||||
- Taiwan: bottom-up experimentation (agency-led pilots)
|
||||
- South Korea: top-down mandate (ministry-driven framework)
|
||||
- Japan: cautious incrementalism (voluntary guidelines)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Critical success factors** (converging evidence across all 3 countries):
|
||||
- Data infrastructure maturity
|
||||
- Accreditation agency technical capacity
|
||||
- University willingness to share data
|
||||
- Clear governance framework for AI decisions
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Key tension**: efficiency gains vs transparency concerns
|
||||
- All 3 countries report resistance from faculty regarding "black box" decisions
|
||||
- Only Korea has attempted regulatory response (AI Ethics in Education Act 2025)
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Evidence gap**:
|
||||
- No rigorous outcome studies yet (all countries < 3 years into implementation)
|
||||
- Student/faculty experience data almost entirely absent
|
||||
|
||||
## Contradictions Identified
|
||||
- Taiwan HEEACT reports "high adoption" but academic literature suggests
|
||||
most universities are still in pilot phase → definition of "adoption" varies
|
||||
|
||||
## Knowledge Gaps
|
||||
- Impact on accreditation outcomes (pass/fail rates)
|
||||
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
|
||||
- Faculty perceptions and behavioral changes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Handoff Instruction
|
||||
|
||||
After completing deep-research, the user inputs:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Now help me write a paper based on this research
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## academic-paper intake_agent Auto-Detection
|
||||
|
||||
**intake_agent Detection Process**:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Scanning available materials...
|
||||
|
||||
[DETECTED] Research Question Brief
|
||||
- Source: deep-research / research_question_agent
|
||||
- Status: Complete (FINER 4.6/5)
|
||||
- Action: SKIP academic-paper Phase 1 (topic scoping)
|
||||
|
||||
[DETECTED] Methodology Blueprint
|
||||
- Source: deep-research / research_architect_agent
|
||||
- Status: Complete (pragmatist QCA + document analysis)
|
||||
- Action: SKIP academic-paper Phase 2 (methodology design)
|
||||
- Note: Will integrate into Method section directly
|
||||
|
||||
[DETECTED] Annotated Bibliography (18 sources, APA 7.0)
|
||||
- Source: deep-research / bibliography_agent
|
||||
- Status: Complete, quality-screened
|
||||
- Action: SKIP academic-paper literature search
|
||||
- Note: Will use as foundation for Literature Review section
|
||||
|
||||
[DETECTED] Synthesis Report
|
||||
- Source: deep-research / synthesis_agent
|
||||
- Status: Complete (3 core findings + 1 contradiction + 2 gaps)
|
||||
- Action: SKIP academic-paper analysis phase
|
||||
- Note: Will structure Findings and Discussion sections around synthesis
|
||||
|
||||
Materials Assessment: COMPREHENSIVE
|
||||
Recommended academic-paper mode: full (with accelerated pipeline)
|
||||
Estimated sections already covered: 60-70%
|
||||
Remaining work: Writing, formatting, argumentation, and polish
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Skipped Steps and Reasons
|
||||
|
||||
| academic-paper Step | Normal Workflow | After Handoff | Reason |
|
||||
|---------------------|---------|-----------|------|
|
||||
| Phase 1: Topic Scoping | intake_agent clarifies from scratch | SKIPPED | RQ Brief is complete |
|
||||
| Phase 2: Structure Planning | outline_agent designs structure | PARTIAL | Has Blueprint but needs conversion to paper structure |
|
||||
| Phase 3: Literature Search | literature_agent searches | SKIPPED | Bibliography is complete |
|
||||
| Phase 4: Literature Review Writing | review_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Synthesis but needs conversion to paper tone |
|
||||
| Phase 5: Methodology Writing | method_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Blueprint but needs expansion to full paragraphs |
|
||||
| Phase 6: Findings Writing | findings_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Synthesis but needs expanded argumentation |
|
||||
| Phase 7: Discussion Writing | discussion_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Needs original discourse (not direct copy of Synthesis) |
|
||||
| Phase 8: Intro + Conclusion | bookend_agent writes | ACTIVE | Needs to be written based on full text |
|
||||
| Phase 9: Abstract + Formatting | format_agent processes | ACTIVE | Needs full text completion first |
|
||||
| Phase 10: Self-Review | review_agent reviews | ACTIVE | Must be executed |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Post-Handoff academic-paper Actual Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
=== academic-paper: Accelerated Pipeline ===
|
||||
|
||||
Step 1: STRUCTURAL MAPPING
|
||||
[outline_agent]
|
||||
- Input: RQ Brief + Methodology Blueprint + Synthesis Report
|
||||
- Output: Complete paper outline, each section tagged with corresponding deep-research materials
|
||||
- Output example:
|
||||
|
||||
I. Introduction
|
||||
- Context: AI in HE QA (from Synthesis background)
|
||||
- Problem: Cross-national variation unexplained
|
||||
- Purpose: Compare 3 East Asian models
|
||||
- RQ: [Directly cite RQ Brief]
|
||||
|
||||
II. Literature Review
|
||||
- 2.1 AI in Quality Assurance (from Bibliography themes)
|
||||
- 2.2 Diffusion of Innovation framework (from Blueprint)
|
||||
- 2.3 Institutional Isomorphism (from Blueprint)
|
||||
- 2.4 East Asian HE systems comparison
|
||||
|
||||
III. Methodology
|
||||
- 3.1 Research design: QCA + document analysis (from Blueprint)
|
||||
- 3.2 Case selection and data sources
|
||||
- 3.3 Analytical framework
|
||||
- 3.4 Validity and limitations
|
||||
|
||||
IV. Findings
|
||||
- 4.1 Three adoption models (from Synthesis Finding 1)
|
||||
- 4.2 Critical success factors (from Synthesis Finding 2)
|
||||
- 4.3 Efficiency vs transparency tension (from Synthesis Finding 3)
|
||||
|
||||
V. Discussion
|
||||
- 5.1 Theoretical implications
|
||||
- 5.2 Policy implications for accreditation agencies
|
||||
- 5.3 Practical recommendations
|
||||
- 5.4 Limitations (from Synthesis gaps + Blueprint validity)
|
||||
|
||||
VI. Conclusion
|
||||
- Summary + Future research directions
|
||||
|
||||
Step 2: SECTION WRITING (Parallel)
|
||||
[review_writer_agent] → Literature Review
|
||||
- Based on Annotated Bibliography and Synthesis, transform into a fluent literature review
|
||||
- Not sequential summaries, but thematic integration
|
||||
|
||||
[method_writer_agent] → Methodology
|
||||
- Expand the Blueprint into complete methodology paragraphs
|
||||
- Add technical details and procedural explanation for QCA
|
||||
|
||||
[findings_writer_agent] → Findings
|
||||
- Expand the Synthesis's 3 core findings into evidence-supported arguments
|
||||
- Each finding accompanied by specific cases and data
|
||||
- Address contradictions flagged in the Synthesis
|
||||
|
||||
Step 3: DISCUSSION + BOOKENDS
|
||||
[discussion_writer_agent] → Discussion
|
||||
- Original discourse: dialogue between findings and theory
|
||||
- Does not repeat Findings; instead explains "why"
|
||||
- Integrates deep-research Knowledge Gaps as Future Research
|
||||
|
||||
[bookend_agent] → Introduction + Conclusion
|
||||
- Introduction: from macro context to specific RQ
|
||||
- Conclusion: no new information, echoes RQ and looks to the future
|
||||
|
||||
Step 4: ABSTRACT + FORMAT
|
||||
[format_agent]
|
||||
- Abstract: 150-250 words, IMRAD structure
|
||||
- APA 7.0 full-text formatting
|
||||
- Reference list cleanup (based on Bibliography + newly added citations)
|
||||
|
||||
Step 5: SELF-REVIEW
|
||||
[review_agent]
|
||||
- Internal consistency check (RQ → Method → Findings → Discussion logic chain)
|
||||
- Citation completeness (every claim has a citation)
|
||||
- Format compliance
|
||||
- Verdict: Ready for submission / Needs revision
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## User-Facing Handoff Experience
|
||||
|
||||
**academic-paper's Opening Message**:
|
||||
|
||||
> I've read your complete outputs from the deep-research stage, including:
|
||||
> - Research Question Brief (FINER 4.6/5)
|
||||
> - Methodology Blueprint (QCA + document analysis)
|
||||
> - Annotated Bibliography (18 quality-screened sources)
|
||||
> - Synthesis Report (3 core findings + 2 knowledge gaps)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Based on these materials, I've completed a preliminary plan for the paper outline. Here is the planned paper structure:
|
||||
> [Display outline]
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I have two questions that need your confirmation:
|
||||
> 1. What is your target journal? (This affects word limits and formatting requirements)
|
||||
> 2. Should the paper language be English or bilingual?
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Once confirmed, I'll begin writing. Because the research foundation is already comprehensive, I can skip the early exploration stages and proceed directly to paper writing.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Not copy-paste**: academic-paper does not directly copy deep-research outputs, but transforms them into the tone and format of an academic paper
|
||||
2. **May discover new issues**: During the writing process, academic-paper agents may discover points missed by deep-research and will proactively supplement them
|
||||
3. **Still requires user confirmation**: Target journal, language preference, specific formatting requirements still require user input
|
||||
4. **Review recommendation auto-connects**: After paper completion, the user can continue with `academic-paper-reviewer` for formal review
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user