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:
133
skills/deep-research/examples/systematic_review.md
Normal file
133
skills/deep-research/examples/systematic_review.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
|
||||
# Example: Systematic Literature Review (lit-review mode)
|
||||
|
||||
## User Request
|
||||
```
|
||||
Literature review on the effectiveness of micro-credentials in professional development
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Mode**: `lit-review` (bibliography_agent + source_verification_agent + synthesis_agent)
|
||||
|
||||
## bibliography_agent Output
|
||||
|
||||
### Search Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
**Databases**: Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, ProQuest Education
|
||||
**Keywords**:
|
||||
- Primary: "micro-credentials" OR "micro-certifications" OR "digital badges" OR "stackable credentials"
|
||||
- Combined with: "professional development" OR "workforce development" OR "continuing education" OR "upskilling"
|
||||
- Filters: 2018-2025, English, peer-reviewed + selected grey literature
|
||||
|
||||
**PRISMA Flow**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Records identified: 1,243
|
||||
├── Scopus: 412
|
||||
├── Web of Science: 389
|
||||
├── ERIC: 287
|
||||
└── ProQuest: 155
|
||||
|
||||
Duplicates removed: 318
|
||||
Records screened (title/abstract): 925
|
||||
Records excluded: 791
|
||||
- Not about micro-credentials: 423
|
||||
- Not professional development context: 198
|
||||
- Opinion/editorial only: 102
|
||||
- Non-English: 68
|
||||
Full-text articles assessed: 134
|
||||
Full-text excluded: 96
|
||||
- Insufficient methodology description: 41
|
||||
- Focus on K-12 not HE/professional: 32
|
||||
- Duplicate dataset: 14
|
||||
- Unable to access full text: 9
|
||||
Studies included in synthesis: 38
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Annotated Bibliography (Selected entries)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Kato, S., Galan-Muros, V., & Weko, T. (2020). The emergence of alternative credentials. *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 216. https://doi.org/10.1787/b741f39e-en**
|
||||
- Relevance: Comprehensive OECD policy analysis of alternative credentials ecosystem
|
||||
- Key Findings: Micro-credentials gaining traction across OECD but lack standardization; quality assurance is critical challenge
|
||||
- Methodology: Policy analysis with cross-country comparison
|
||||
- Quality: Level VII (policy report) but high institutional credibility
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Ralston, S. J. (2021). Higher education's micro-credentialing craze: A postdigital-Deweyan critique. *Postdigital Science and Education*, *3*(1), 83-101.**
|
||||
- Relevance: Critical perspective on micro-credential movement
|
||||
- Key Findings: Warns of commodification of learning; micro-credentials risk reducing education to narrow skills training
|
||||
- Quality: Level VII (philosophical/critical analysis)
|
||||
- Contribution: Important counterpoint to dominant positive narrative
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2021). Analysing micro-credentials in higher education: A Bernsteinian analysis. *Journal of Curriculum Studies*, *53*(2), 212-228.**
|
||||
- Relevance: Theoretical framework for understanding micro-credential design
|
||||
- Key Findings: Micro-credentials risk "segmentalist" approach to knowledge; need to be embedded in coherent curricula
|
||||
- Quality: Level VI (theoretical analysis with empirical illustration)
|
||||
|
||||
[... 35 more sources ...]
|
||||
|
||||
## source_verification_agent Output
|
||||
|
||||
### Source Quality Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Grade | Count | % |
|
||||
|-------|-------|---|
|
||||
| A | 5 | 13% |
|
||||
| B | 14 | 37% |
|
||||
| C | 12 | 32% |
|
||||
| D | 6 | 16% |
|
||||
| F | 1 | 3% |
|
||||
|
||||
**Flagged**:
|
||||
- Source #22: Predatory journal indicator (rapid acceptance, no editorial board listed) -> Excluded
|
||||
- Source #31: Author is CEO of micro-credential platform -> COI noted, included with caveat
|
||||
- Sources #8, #15, #29: Pre-2020 data may not reflect post-pandemic acceleration -> Currency caveat
|
||||
|
||||
**Final included**: 37 sources (1 excluded for quality)
|
||||
|
||||
## synthesis_agent Output
|
||||
|
||||
### Literature Matrix (Condensed)
|
||||
|
||||
| Theme | Sources For | Sources Against | Contested | Strength |
|
||||
|-------|-----------|----------------|-----------|----------|
|
||||
| Employer recognition improving | 8 | 3 | 2 | Moderate |
|
||||
| Learner completion rates high | 6 | 4 | 1 | Contested |
|
||||
| QA frameworks inadequate | 12 | 1 | 0 | Strong |
|
||||
| Equity benefits | 9 | 5 | 3 | Contested |
|
||||
| Skills-job alignment | 11 | 2 | 1 | Moderate-Strong |
|
||||
|
||||
### Synthesis Narrative
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme 1: Quality Assurance Frameworks Are Lagging** (Strong evidence)
|
||||
The strongest finding across the literature is that existing QA frameworks were not designed for micro-credentials. Twelve of 37 sources address this theme, with near-universal agreement that current accreditation models — designed for degree programs — do not map well onto short-form, competency-based credentials (Kato et al., 2020; Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). The European approach through the European MOOC Consortium has made progress on a common framework (Witthaus et al., 2016), but adoption remains uneven. Several authors argue that without robust QA, the micro-credential ecosystem risks becoming a "Wild West" of unverified claims (Ralston, 2021).
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme 2: Skills-Job Alignment Shows Promise** (Moderate-Strong)
|
||||
Evidence suggests micro-credentials improve skills-job matching, particularly in technology and healthcare sectors. Employer surveys consistently report higher satisfaction with candidates who hold relevant micro-credentials alongside degrees (Brown & Kurzweil, 2023). However, alignment depends heavily on industry involvement in credential design — credentials developed without employer input show weaker labor market outcomes (Weise, 2020).
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme 3: Equity Outcomes Are Contested** (Contested)
|
||||
The literature is split on whether micro-credentials improve or worsen educational equity. Proponents cite lower cost, flexible scheduling, and targeted skills development as benefits for underserved populations (Fishman et al., 2023). Critics counter that micro-credentials may create a two-tier system where disadvantaged learners receive "credential fragments" while privileged learners pursue full degrees (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). The resolution appears context-dependent: when micro-credentials are stackable toward degrees, equity benefits are stronger; when they serve as standalone alternatives, stratification risks increase.
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme 4: Employer Recognition Is Growing but Uneven** (Moderate)
|
||||
Employer recognition of micro-credentials has increased significantly since 2020, driven partly by pandemic-accelerated digital transformation. However, recognition varies dramatically by industry, region, and credential provider. Technology sector employers show highest acceptance (78% in recent surveys), while traditional sectors like law and finance remain skeptical (under 30%) (Digital Promise, 2024).
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme 5: Completion and Engagement Patterns Vary** (Contested)
|
||||
Completion rates for micro-credential programs range from 25% to 85% depending on program design, support structures, and learner demographics. Self-paced online formats show lowest completion (25-40%), while cohort-based blended models achieve highest rates (70-85%). Importantly, several studies note that "completion" may not be the right metric — some learners achieve their goals by completing specific modules without finishing the full credential (Reich & Ruiperez-Valiente, 2019).
|
||||
|
||||
### Knowledge Gaps
|
||||
1. **Longitudinal outcomes**: No studies tracking micro-credential holders beyond 3 years
|
||||
2. **Non-English contexts**: 89% of studies from English-speaking countries
|
||||
3. **Cost-effectiveness**: No rigorous cost-benefit analyses found
|
||||
4. **Stacking behavior**: Limited evidence on how learners combine micro-credentials over time
|
||||
|
||||
### Contradictions
|
||||
| Claim A | Claim B | Assessment |
|
||||
|---------|---------|-----------|
|
||||
| Micro-credentials democratize access (9 sources) | Micro-credentials widen digital divide (5 sources) | Context-dependent: depends on infrastructure, digital literacy, and cost |
|
||||
| High completion rates (6 sources) | Low completion for disadvantaged learners (4 sources) | Population-dependent: completion varies significantly by demographic |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Output
|
||||
- Annotated bibliography: 37 sources in APA 7.0
|
||||
- Literature matrix: 5 themes x 37 sources
|
||||
- Synthesis narrative: ~3,200 words
|
||||
- 4 knowledge gaps identified
|
||||
- 2 major contradictions analyzed
|
||||
- Evidence strength assessment per theme
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user