forge-research

Convert broad research requests into sourced, confidence-scored claims.

Updated Aug 27, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/f4rkh4d/forge-skill --skill forge-research
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: forge-research
Source: https://github.com/f4rkh4d/forge-skill/tree/main/skills/research/forge-research
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/f4rkh4d/forge-skill --skill forge-research

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes assets (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

forge-research prevents confident-but-shaky outputs by forcing AI or humans to perform real research: decomposing questions, prioritizing source quality, cross-checking claims, and explicitly stating confidence and unknowns.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Question decomposition: turns a broad topic into searchable sub-questions so each step reduces uncertainty.
  • Source hierarchy with recency: prioritizes primary sources over secondary and tertiary, and favors newer material in fast-moving domains.
  • Search-vs-ask decisioning: searches for public answers, asks for private/contextual answers, and reads code when the question is codebase-specific.
  • Anti-hallucination verification: requires cited links and verified quotes, plus counter-searches for consequential conclusions.
  • Confidence-based synthesis template: outputs claims labeled as established, likely, disputed, and includes open questions plus a method section.

Quick Start

Use forge-research to answer this question by decomposing it into sub-questions, performing searches with a primary>secondary>tertiary source hierarchy, verifying cited URLs and quotes, and returning the full template with confidence levels and open questions.

Frequently Asked Questions about forge-research

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I prevent AI hallucinated citations in research outputs?

This Skill prevents hallucinated citations by requiring verified links and quotes, prioritizing primary sources, and counter-searching consequential conclusions. It produces confidence-scored claims labeled as established, likely, or disputed.

What's the best way to structure decision-support research with confidence scoring?

The best way to structure decision-support research is decomposing broad questions into searchable sub-questions, applying a primary to tertiary source hierarchy, and synthesizing findings into a template with confidence levels, sources, and open questions.

How does question decomposition work for evidence verification?

Question decomposition for evidence verification works by breaking broad investigation requests into smaller searchable sub-questions. Each sub-question is researched independently to reduce uncertainty and ensure fact verification across public web sources.

Does this research approach work for analyzing codebases or only public web sources?

This research approach works for both public web sources and codebases. It features search-versus-ask decisioning that searches for public answers, asks for private contextual answers, and reads code when the question is codebase-specific.

When should I not use automated fact verification for comparing trade-offs?

You should avoid using automated fact verification when you lack access to primary sources for validation, or when a domain requires specialized private data that cannot be counter-searched across public web sources to ensure citation discipline.