mcpbeat

Nw Research Methodology

nwave-ai/nwave-nw-research-methodology

Research output templates, distillation workflow, and quality standards for evidence-driven research

This is a copy. The original lives at nwave-ai/nw-research-methodology.

1k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
588
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-research-methodology

The instruction itself

10 sections, as written by the author

Research Methodology

Research Output Template

Use for all research documents in docs/research/.

# Research: {Topic}

**Date**: {ISO-8601} | **Researcher**: nw-researcher (Nova) | **Confidence**: {High/Medium/Low} | **Sources**: {count}

## Executive Summary
{2-3 paragraph overview of key findings, main insights, and overall conclusion}

## Research Methodology
**Search Strategy**: {how sources were found}
**Source Selection**: Types: {academic/official/industry/technical_docs} | Reputation: {high/medium-high min} | Verification: {cross-referencing approach}
**Quality Standards**: Target 3 sources/claim (min 1 authoritative) | All major claims cross-referenced | Avg reputation: {0.0-1.0}

## Findings

### Finding 1: {Descriptive Title}
**Evidence**: "{Direct quote or specific data point}"
**Source**: [{Source Name}]({URL}) - Accessed {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Confidence**: {High/Medium/Low}
**Verification**: [{Source 2}]({URL2}), [{Source 3}]({URL3})
**Analysis**: {Brief interpretation or context}

{Repeat Finding structure as needed}

## Source Analysis
| Source | Domain | Reputation | Type | Access Date | Cross-verified |
|--------|--------|------------|------|-------------|----------------|
| {name} | {domain} | {High/Medium-High/Medium} | {academic/official/industry/technical} | {YYYY-MM-DD} | {Y/N} |

Reputation: High: {count} ({%}) | Medium-high: {count} ({%}) | Avg: {0.0-1.0}

## Knowledge Gaps
### Gap 1: {Description}
**Issue**: {missing/unclear info} | **Attempted**: {sources searched} | **Recommendation**: {how to address}

## Conflicting Information (if applicable)
### Conflict 1: {Topic}
**Position A**: {Statement} — Source: [{Name}]({URL}), Reputation: {score}, Evidence: {quote}
**Position B**: {Contradictory statement} — Source: [{Name}]({URL}), Reputation: {score}, Evidence: {quote}
**Assessment**: {Which source more authoritative and why}

## Recommendations for Further Research
1. {Specific recommendation with rationale}

## Full Citations
[1] {Author}. "{Title}". {Publication}. {Date}. {URL}. Accessed {YYYY-MM-DD}.

## Research Metadata
Duration: {X min} | Examined: {count} | Cited: {count} | Cross-refs: {count} | Confidence: High {%}, Medium {%}, Low {%} | Output: docs/research/{filename}

Skill Distillation Workflow

When creating a skill (via *create-skill or skill_for specified):

Phase 1: Research

Execute comprehensive research, create full doc in docs/research/{category}/{topic}-comprehensive-research.md, complete quality gates.

Phase 2: Distillation

  • Read comprehensive research
  • Transform: academic -> practitioner-focused
  • Preserve 100% essential concepts (no lossy compression)
  • Remove: verbose explanations, extensive examples, redundant cross-refs
  • Keep: core concepts, practical tools, methodologies, decision heuristics
  • Make self-contained (no external refs) | Target <1000 tokens/file
  • Write to ~/.claude/skills/nw-{skill-name}/SKILL.md{topic}-methodology.md

Phase 3: Validation

Verify all essential concepts present | Confirm practitioner focus | Check self-containment

Quality Standards

Per-Claim Requirements (Adaptive to Turn Budget)

Source requirements adapt to available turn budget:

  • Ideal: 3+ independent sources per major claim
  • Acceptable: 2 credible sources when budget is constrained
  • Minimum: 1 authoritative source (official docs, RFC, specification) with explicit confidence note
  • Never: 0 sources -- unsourced claims must be flagged as "[unverified]"

When budget runs low, prioritize BREADTH (cover all claims with minimum sources) over DEPTH (exhaust sources for one claim while ignoring others).

Additional requirements:

  • Each source validated against trusted source config from prompt context
  • Cross-reference status documented per finding

Confidence Ratings

  • High: 3+ high-reputation sources agree, no contradictions
  • Medium: 2+ agree, minor contradictions or some medium-trust
  • Low: single source or significant contradictions

Quality Gates (before finalizing)

  • Every major claim has citations (3+ ideal, 2 acceptable, 1 authoritative minimum) | 2. All sources from trusted domains
  • All findings evidence-backed | 4. Knowledge gaps documented | 5. Output in allowed directories
  • Claims with fewer than 3 sources have confidence rating adjusted accordingly

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take nwave-ai/nwave-nw-research-methodology from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.