Research

作者 warpdotdev2a03b403b4f8無授權條款收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日

Delegate noisy investigation to one or more subagents so the orchestrator's context stays clean, then work from the distilled answer. Use this skill whenever answering a question would require reading many files, long logs, large diffs, or wide codebase surveys — i.e. when producing the answer generates far more noise than the answer itself. Use it for "how does X work", "where is Y used", "what's the root cause of Z", "summarize this PR/log" style questions, and reach for it liberally before reading a pile of files inline.

僅含說明AI & Agents
AI 產生的概覽

把嘈雜的調查工作委派給子代理,讓協調者的上下文保持乾淨,並取回濃縮後的答案。

功能
這個技能描述了一套工作流程:把搜尋工作交給一個或多個子代理來回答問題,讓檔案內容、日誌和走進死路的讀取不會進入協調者的上下文。內容涵蓋何時值得委派、如何向子代理交代任務、單一與並行派生,以及一份好的報告應包含什麼:直接答案、關鍵證據(例如檔案路徑和符號),以及注意事項。它產出的是帶有佐證的濃縮答案,而不是原始素材。
適用情境
當回答問題需要閱讀大量檔案、冗長日誌、大型差異或廣泛的程式庫調查時使用,例如根因問題、用法調查或 PR 摘要。它不適合閱讀兩三個已知檔案、單次查詢,或下一步編輯需要原始檔案的情況。
執行需求
不附帶指令碼或工具,只有指示說明。它假定存在能夠派生代理的代理環境,並指定了用於子代理的特定搜尋模型。

Research

Use this skill to answer a question by delegating the work of finding the answer to a subagent, so that the byproducts of that work — file contents, log noise, dead-end reads — never enter your own context. You get back a distilled answer plus the evidence that supports it, and you stay sharp for the actual task.

Why this matters

Your context window is your most valuable and limited resource. Reading twenty files to discover that three of them mattered permanently pollutes your context with seventeen files of noise, degrading every subsequent decision you make. A subagent absorbs that noise on your behalf and hands you only the signal. Think of it as asking a colleague to dig through the archives and report back, rather than dumping the whole archive on your desk.

When to use it

Reach for research delegation when the cost of producing the answer is far greater than the answer itself. Strong signals:

  • You'd need to read many files to find the few that are relevant.
  • You'd need to wade through long test output, CI logs, or stack traces to extract a failure.
  • You'd need to survey how a pattern, API, or symbol is used across the whole repo.
  • You'd need to read and summarize a large diff or PR.
  • The question has several independent sub-parts that could be investigated separately.

Examples — good fits:

  • "What's the root cause of this failing test?" (the subagent reads the logs and traces the code; you get the cause)
  • "How is SessionManager used across the codebase?" (the subagent greps and reads; you get a summary with call sites)
  • "Summarize what this 4,000-line PR changes and why." (the subagent reads the diff; you get the shape of it)

Examples — do NOT delegate:

  • Reading 2–3 files you already know you need. Just read them directly; delegation adds latency for no context savings.
  • A single grep or one-line lookup. Do it yourself.
  • Anything where you need the raw material for your next step. If you're about to edit the files you'd be reading, delegating is counterproductive — you'd just have to re-read them yourself to make the change. Research delegation pays off when the output is a conclusion, not when it's material you'll work on directly.

The cost of a subagent is real (latency and tokens), so the test is always: does the noise I'd avoid outweigh that cost?

How to do it

Spawn locally with a search model

Always spawn research subagents as local agents, never remote — including when the parent is a factory or cloud agent.

Pick the model for the search task, not your own. Research subagents should search and distill, not analyze: use gpt-6-luna-medium for simple search, and gpt-6-luna-xhigh for more involved requests (for example, tracing data flow through call sites).

Single vs. parallel

Default to a single subagent. Spawn multiple subagents in parallel only when the question genuinely decomposes into independent sub-parts that don't need to share intermediate findings — for example, "how does auth work AND how does billing work AND how does the rate limiter work" are three independent investigations that can run at once. Parallelism is a capability worth using when the parts are truly independent, since separate subagents can investigate simultaneously; but don't force a single coherent question into artificial fragments.

Brief the subagent well

The subagent does not share your intent, so spell it out. A good research brief includes:

  • The exact question to answer.
  • Where to look (repo path, branch, suspected files/symbols if you know them).
  • That it is read-only — it should investigate and report, not modify files, unless the task explicitly calls for changes.
  • The output you want back (see below).

Ask for signal, not transcript

Tell the subagent to return a distilled answer plus its supporting evidence, not a raw dump. Specifically:

  1. The direct answer to the question.
  2. The key evidence: exact file paths and symbols (e.g. src/session.rs:142, fn reconnect), so you can jump straight to what matters.
  3. Anything surprising or any caveats/unknowns it hit.

The whole point is that the noise stays with the subagent. If a report comes back bloated, send a focused follow-up to the same subagent asking it to tighten the answer — it retains its context and can refine cheaply.

After you get the answer

Work from the distilled result. If you later find you need the underlying files to make edits, read them directly at that point — now you know exactly which ones matter, so you read three files instead of twenty.

來源與署名

來源:warpdotdev/common-skills位於.agents/skills/research提交2a03b40

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架