GitHub Deep Research Skill
Multi-round research combining GitHub API, web_search, web_fetch to produce comprehensive markdown reports.
Research Workflow
- •Round 1: GitHub API
- •Round 2: Discovery
- •Round 3: Deep Investigation
- •Round 4: Deep Dive
Core Methodology
Query Strategy
Broad to Narrow: Start with GitHub API, then general queries, refine based on findings.
Round 1: GitHub API
Round 2: "{topic} overview"
Round 3: "{topic} architecture", "{topic} vs alternatives"
Round 4: "{topic} issues", "{topic} roadmap", "site:github.com {topic}"
Source Prioritization:
- •Official docs/repos (highest weight)
- •Technical blogs (Medium, Dev.to)
- •News articles (verified outlets)
- •Community discussions (Reddit, HN)
- •Social media (lowest weight, for sentiment)
Research Rounds
Round 1 - GitHub API
Directly execute scripts/github_api.py without read_file():
python /path/to/skill/scripts/github_api.py <owner> <repo> summary python /path/to/skill/scripts/github_api.py <owner> <repo> readme python /path/to/skill/scripts/github_api.py <owner> <repo> tree
Available commands (the last argument of github_api.py):
- •summary
- •info
- •readme
- •tree
- •languages
- •contributors
- •commits
- •issues
- •prs
- •releases
Round 2 - Discovery (3-5 web_search)
- •Get overview and identify key terms
- •Find official website/repo
- •Identify main players/competitors
Round 3 - Deep Investigation (5-10 web_search + web_fetch)
- •Technical architecture details
- •Timeline of key events
- •Community sentiment
- •Use web_fetch on valuable URLs for full content
Round 4 - Deep Dive
- •Analyze commit history for timeline
- •Review issues/PRs for feature evolution
- •Check contributor activity
Report Structure
Follow template in assets/report_template.md:
- •Metadata Block - Date, confidence level, subject
- •Executive Summary - 2-3 sentence overview with key metrics
- •Chronological Timeline - Phased breakdown with dates
- •Key Analysis Sections - Topic-specific deep dives
- •Metrics & Comparisons - Tables, growth charts
- •Strengths & Weaknesses - Balanced assessment
- •Sources - Categorized references
- •Confidence Assessment - Claims by confidence level
- •Methodology - Research approach used
Mermaid Diagrams
Include diagrams where helpful:
Timeline (Gantt):
gantt
title Project Timeline
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
section Phase 1
Development :2025-01-01, 2025-03-01
section Phase 2
Launch :2025-03-01, 2025-04-01
Architecture (Flowchart):
flowchart TD
A[User] --> B[Coordinator]
B --> C[Planner]
C --> D[Research Team]
D --> E[Reporter]
Comparison (Pie/Bar):
pie title Market Share
"Project A" : 45
"Project B" : 30
"Others" : 25
Confidence Scoring
Assign confidence based on source quality:
| Confidence | Criteria |
|---|---|
| High (90%+) | Official docs, GitHub data, multiple corroborating sources |
| Medium (70-89%) | Single reliable source, recent articles |
| Low (50-69%) | Social media, unverified claims, outdated info |
Output
Save report as: research_{topic}_{YYYYMMDD}.md
Formatting Rules
- •Chinese content: Use full-width punctuation(,。:;!?)
- •Technical terms: Provide Wiki/doc URL on first mention
- •Tables: Use for metrics, comparisons
- •Code blocks: For technical examples
- •Mermaid: For architecture, timelines, flows
Best Practices
- •Start with official sources - Repo, docs, company blog
- •Verify dates from commits/PRs - More reliable than articles
- •Triangulate claims - 2+ independent sources
- •Note conflicting info - Don't hide contradictions
- •Distinguish fact vs opinion - Label speculation clearly
- •Reference sources - Add source references near claims where applicable
- •Update as you go - Don't wait until end to synthesize