research

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...

npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill research

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

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.

Plus de skills de warpdotdev

council
warpdotdev
Exécutez un conseil de sous-agents diversifiés en modèles pour examiner le même problème sous plusieurs angles, comparer les résultats et produire une recommandation finale. Utilisez cette compétence chaque fois que l'utilisateur demande un conseil, des seconds avis, plusieurs agents/modèles pour évaluer une question, une enquête parallèle, une comparaison équipe rouge/équipe bleue, ou de l'aide pour choisir entre des approches techniques concurrentes.
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
Piloter un workflow orienté spécifications pour des fonctionnalités substantielles en rédigeant PRODUCT.md avant l'implémentation, en écrivant TECH.md lorsque cela est justifié, et en maintenant les deux spécifications à jour à mesure que l'implémentation évolue. À utiliser lors du démarrage d'une fonctionnalité importante, de la planification d'une implémentation pilotée par agent, ou lorsque l'utilisateur souhaite que les spécifications produit et techniques soient intégrées au contrôle de source.
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
Examiner le diff d'une pull request et rédiger un retour structuré dans review.json pour que le workflow le publie. À utiliser lors de la révision d'une PR extraite localement à partir d'artefacts comme pr_diff.txt et pr_description.txt, en produisant une sortie de révision lisible par machine plutôt qu'en publiant directement sur GitHub.
code-reviewdevelopment
create-pr
warpdotdev
Cré
developmentcode-review
implement-specs
warpdotdev
Implémenter une fonctionnalité approuvée à partir de PRODUCT.md et TECH.md, en maintenant l'alignement des spécifications et du code dans la même PR à mesure que l'implémentation évolue. Utiliser après l'approbation des spécifications produit et technique, lorsque l'étape suivante consiste à construire la fonctionnalité.
developmentcode-reviewapi
cross-critique
warpdotdev
Effectuer un second tour sur une question contestée en faisant circuler la proposition indépendante de chaque sous-agent auprès des autres auteurs et en demandant des avantages et inconvénients structurés, puis synthétiser. Utilisez cette compétence chaque fois que vous avez plusieurs propositions ou opinions indépendantes sur une décision contestée — compromis d'architecture, désaccords lors de revues de code, choix de conception, théories concurrentes sur la cause racine — et que vous souhaitez une analyse plus fine que celle que vous produiriez par une simple synthèse. Se combine naturellement avec les compétences council et research ;...
resolve-merge-conflicts
warpdotdev
Resolve Git merge conflicts by extracting only unresolved paths, conflict hunks, and compact diffs instead of loading whole files into context. Use when a merge, rebase, cherry-pick, or stash pop stops on conflicts, when `git status` shows unmerged paths, or when files contain conflict markers.
developmentcode-review
brandalf
warpdotdev
Guide la création, la révision et la relecture des assets de marque Warp ou Oz. À utiliser lors du travail sur des pages de lancement, de la documentation, des composants HTML/CSS, des maquettes UI, des prompts, des assets sociaux, des textes, des présentations ou tout autre livrable de marque qui doit ressembler et sonner indubitablement Warp ou Oz.
designcreativemarketing