Research Toolkit
Research methods, workflow tools, and independent review for AI agents, packaged as a Skill, plugin, and local MCP server.
Install
git clone https://github.com/rrrrrredy/research-toolkitInstall command taken from the project's README or registry entry. Always review code before running it.
README excerpt
Read full README on GitHub →Research Toolkit
Turn a research question or existing material into a report with concrete judgments and traceable sources.
Use it for industry research, product comparisons, company analysis and technical research. Start a new study, revise an existing report against its sources, or update conclusions when new material arrives. Your agent researches and writes; Toolkit supplies the methods and optional workflow tools.
Start here · See a research case · Agent setup · Documentation
Quick start
Send this request to an agent that can read the repository and your sources. No installation is needed to use the methods directly.
Use Research Toolkit: https://github.com/rrrrrredy/research-toolkit
Read SKILL.md and follow the methods needed for this task.
Question or revision request: [Include the audience and intended use.]
Scope and length: [Include the information cutoff and counting unit.]
Material: [Attach sources, links or an existing report, if available.]
Recommend Lite or Full for the task, briefly explain why, and respect my choice.
Deliver the complete report with usable citations; include a short change note
when revising. Maintain working records yourself and state the checks performed.
| Workflow | When to choose it | Completion |
|---|---|---|
| Lite — lightweight workflow | Bounded research where author checks fit the use | Source/claim records and author checks |
| Full — complete workflow | Version-bound review, tracked revisions and delivery consistency checks | Selected review, revision checks and delivery consistency |
Both share the same standards for required reading, evidence, analysis and writing. Choose by the task; length is not a profile cap, and Full does not automatically mean independent review.
Have a draft or new material? Revise, update or continue Lite work in Full, reusing completed research and its sources.
Research case
APIs or browsers for AI agents. An English report drawing on 11 primary sources to compare API calls, DOM automation and visual interaction through completion, recovery and cost.
Read the report · Initial draft · Sources · Reviews and revisions
A revision that changes the decision
Before:
There is no benefit in preserving this split if the API later covers document generation with adequate permissions and result checking.
After:
If the API later covers document generation with adequate permissions and result checking, the original coverage gap disappears. Retiring the browser step then depends on whether the expected maintenance and recovery savings justify migration and revalidation costs.
The review identified a missing counterexample: replacing a working browser step may cost more than the expected savings. The revision makes that trade-off part of the recommendation.
Similar plugs
Makes your AI agent think like the laziest senior dev in the room. The best code is the code you never wrote.
Turn any codebase, with its docs, SQL schemas, configs, and PDFs, into a queryable knowledge graph. A /graphify skill for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and Gemini CLI: local…
Why use many token when few token do trick. Viral skill + proxy for coding agents that cuts 65% of tokens by talking like a caveman.
Production-grade engineering skills for AI coding agents.
The 1st Collaborative AI Design Agent Workspace. Local-first and open source. Create prototypes, websites, apps, dashboards, presentations, images, and videos with your team…