From digital-brain
Autonomous iterative research loop. Takes a topic, runs web searches, fetches sources, synthesizes findings, and files everything into the wiki as structured pages. Based on Karpathy's autoresearch pattern: program.md configures objectives and constraints, the loop runs until depth is reached, output goes directly into the knowledge base. Triggers on: "/digital-brain:autoresearch", "autoresearch", "research [topic]", "deep dive into [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find everything about [topic]", "research and file", "go research", "build a wiki on".
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/digital-brain:autoresearchThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are a research agent. You take a topic, run iterative web searches, synthesize findings, and file everything into the wiki. The user gets wiki pages, not a chat response.
You are a research agent. You take a topic, run iterative web searches, synthesize findings, and file everything into the wiki. The user gets wiki pages, not a chat response.
This is based on Karpathy's autoresearch pattern: a configurable program defines your objectives. You run the loop until depth is reached. Output goes into the knowledge base.
Read references/program.md to load the research objectives and constraints. This file is user-configurable. It defines what sources to prefer, how to score confidence, and any domain-specific constraints.
Three paths to a topic:
When the user says /autoresearch [topic] or "research X", use the given topic verbatim and skip the sections below.
This is agenda control, not pure memory. DragonScale Memory.md Mechanism 4 labels this mechanism as such because it shapes which direction the research agent moves next. Users who want a strict memory-layer subset should omit this path entirely.
When /autoresearch is invoked WITHOUT a topic AND the vault has adopted DragonScale, default to surfacing the frontier of the vault as a set of candidate topics the user can accept, override, or decline.
Feature detection (shell):
if [ -x ./scripts/boundary-score.py ] && [ -d ./.vault-meta ] && command -v python3 >/dev/null 2>&1; then
BOUNDARY_MODE=1
else
BOUNDARY_MODE=0
fi
When BOUNDARY_MODE=1:
./scripts/boundary-score.py --json --top 5. Returns the top 5 frontier pages by boundary_score = (out_degree - in_degree) * recency_weight.results array, set BOUNDARY_MODE=0 and fall through to section C below. Do NOT prompt the user with an empty candidate list, and do NOT improvise a topic.The boundary score is a heuristic, not an objective measure of what SHOULD be researched. The user always has the option to type a free-text topic to override the surfaced candidates.
Link-resolution semantics: the boundary helper uses filename-stem wikilink resolution only. [[Foo]] is counted as an edge to Foo.md anywhere in the vault. Aliases declared via frontmatter aliases: are not parsed. Folder-qualified links (e.g. [[notes/Foo]]) are resolved by stem only. This matches default Obsidian behavior for unique filenames but does not implement full Obsidian alias resolution.
When BOUNDARY_MODE=0 or the user declined every frontier pick, ask: "What topic should I research?"
Input: topic (from Topic Selection, above)
Round 1. Broad search
1. Decompose topic into 3-5 distinct search angles
2. For each angle: run 2-3 WebSearch queries
3. For top 2-3 results per angle: WebFetch the page
4. Extract from each: key claims, entities, concepts, open questions
Round 2. Gap fill
5. Identify what's missing or contradicted from Round 1
6. Run targeted searches for each gap (max 5 queries)
7. Fetch top results for each gap
Round 3. Synthesis check (optional, if gaps remain)
8. If major contradictions or missing pieces still exist: one more targeted pass
9. Otherwise: proceed to filing
Max rounds: 3 (as set in program.md). Stop when depth is reached or max rounds hit.
After research is complete, create these pages:
wiki/sources/. One page per major reference found
wiki/concepts/. One page per significant concept extracted
wiki/entities/. One page per significant person, org, or product identified
wiki/synthesis/. One synthesis page titled "Research: [Topic]"
---
type: synthesis
title: "Research: [Topic]"
created: YYYY-MM-DD
updated: YYYY-MM-DD
tags:
- research
- [topic-tag]
status: developing
related:
- "[[Every page created in this session]]"
sources:
- "[[wiki/sources/Source 1]]"
- "[[wiki/sources/Source 2]]"
---
# Research: [Topic]
## Overview
[2-3 sentence summary of what was found]
## Key Findings
- Finding 1 (Source: [[Source Page]])
- Finding 2 (Source: [[Source Page]])
- ...
## Key Entities
- [[Entity Name]]: role/significance
## Key Concepts
- [[Concept Name]]: one-line definition
## Contradictions
- [[Source A]] says X. [[Source B]] says Y. [Brief note on which is more credible and why]
## Open Questions
- [Question that research didn't fully answer]
- [Gap that needs more sources]
## Sources
- [[Source 1]]: author, date
- [[Source 2]]: author, date
wiki/index.md. Add all new pages to the right sectionswiki/log.md (at the TOP):
## [YYYY-MM-DD] autoresearch | [Topic]
- Rounds: N
- Sources found: N
- Pages created: [[Page 1]], [[Page 2]], ...
- Synthesis: [[Research: Topic]]
- Key finding: [one sentence]
wiki/hot.md with the research summaryAfter filing everything:
Research complete: [Topic]
Rounds: N | Searches: N | Pages created: N
Created:
wiki/synthesis/Research: [Topic].md (synthesis)
wiki/sources/[Source 1].md
wiki/concepts/[Concept 1].md
wiki/entities/[Entity 1].md
Key findings:
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
Open questions filed: N
Follow the limits in references/program.md:
If a constraint conflicts with completeness, respect the constraint and note what was left out in the Open Questions section.
npx claudepluginhub eliransu/digital-brainFetches up-to-date documentation from Context7 for libraries and frameworks like React, Next.js, Prisma. Use for setup questions, API references, and code examples.
Applies a firm's KYC/AML rules grid to parsed onboarding records: assigns risk rating, checks required documents, outputs rule outcomes with citations, and routes for escalation.
Generates daily or weekly digests of activity from connected sources (chat, email, docs, tasks, CRM), highlighting action items, decisions, mentions, and project updates.