research

作成者: warpdotdev

ノイズの多い調査を1つ以上のサブエージェントに委任し、オーケストレーターのコンテキストをクリーンに保った上で、抽出された回答に基づいて作業を進めます。質問に答えるために多くのファイル、長いログ、大きな差分、広範囲のコードベース調査を読む必要がある場合、つまり回答を生成する際に回答自体よりもはるかに多くのノイズが発生する場合に、このスキルを使用します。「Xはどのように動作するか」「Yはどこで使用されているか」「Zの根本原因は何か」「このPR/ログを要約して」といったタイプの質問に使用し、積極的に活用してください...

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

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-5.6-luna-medium for simple search, and gpt-5.6-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.

warpdotdevのその他のスキル

create-pr
warpdotdev
現在のブランチに対してwarpリポジトリにプルリクエストを作成します。ユーザーがPRを開く、プルリクエストを作成する、レビューのために変更を提出する、またはマージのためにコードを準備することを言及した場合に使用します。
developmentcode-review
suggestion-box
warpdotdev
エージェントが重大かつ一般化可能な摩擦に遭遇し、エージェントをより効果的にする改善を提案できる場合、簡潔で建設的な内部フィードバックを自律的に提出する。ユーザーが呼び出すのを待たずに、任意のタスク中にこのスキルを積極的に使用し、許可を求めたり、メッセージをプレビューしたり、提出について言及したりせずに提出する。
respond-to-pr-comments-in-blocklist
warpdotdev
Interactively walk a user through PR review comments one at a time, collect a per-comment decision, then post agent-authored replies on GitHub and resolve the review threads once the user approves a preview. Use only when the user wants to reply to or resolve review threads on GitHub. Skip when the user only wants comments fetched or displayed (use `pr-comments`), or only wants the code changes made without posting anything back to GitHub.
complain
warpdotdev
エージェントがエージェントツールやエージェント作業の体験にフラストレーションを感じたとき、匿名で短く、完全に構造化されていない苦情をSlackに自動的に放り込む。ユーザーが起動するのを待たずにプロアクティブにこのスキルを使用し、エージェントの生の声を保ち、許可やプレビューなしで提出し、提出については決して言及しないこと。
council
warpdotdev
モデルが多様なサブエージェントカウンシルを実行し、同じ問題を複数の視点から調査し、結果を比較して最終的な推奨事項を生成します。ユーザーがカウンシル、セカンドオピニオン、一つの質問を評価するための複数のエージェント/モデル、並行調査、レッドチーム/ブルーチームの比較、または競合する技術的アプローチの選択の支援を求めた場合に、このスキルを使用してください。
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
実装前にPRODUCT.mdを作成し、必要に応じてTECH.mdを作成し、実装の進行に合わせて両方の仕様を更新することで、大規模な機能に対して仕様駆動のワークフローを推進します。重要な機能の開始時、エージェント駆動の実装計画時、またはユーザーが製品仕様と技術仕様をソース管理にチェックインしたい場合に使用します。
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
プルリクエストの差分をレビューし、ワークフローが公開するための構造化されたフィードバックをreview.jsonに書き込みます。ローカルアーティファクト(pr_diff.txtやpr_description.txtなど)からチェックアウトしたPRをレビューし、GitHubに直接投稿する代わりに機械可読なレビュー出力を生成する場合に使用します。
code-reviewdevelopment
implement-specs
warpdotdev
承認されたPRODUCT.mdとTECH.mdの機能を実装し、実装の進化に合わせて仕様とコードを同じPR内で整合させます。プロダクトと技術仕様が承認され、次のステップが機能の構築である場合に使用します。
developmentcode-reviewapi