research

作者: warpdotdev

将嘈杂的调查委托给一个或多个子代理,以保持编排器的上下文干净,然后基于提炼后的答案进行工作。当回答问题需要阅读大量文件、长日志、大型差异或广泛的代码库调查时——即生成答案所产生的噪音远多于答案本身时——使用此技能。用于"X如何工作"、"Y在哪里使用"、"Z的根本原因是什么"、"总结此PR/日志"类问题,并自由地使用它……

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.

来自 warpdotdev 的更多技能

council
warpdotdev
运行一个模型多样化的子代理委员会,从多个角度调查同一问题,比较发现,并生成最终建议。当用户要求委员会、第二意见、多个代理/模型评估一个问题、并行调查、红队/蓝队对比,或帮助在竞争性技术方案中做出决策时,使用此技能。
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
通过先编写PRODUCT.md再实现、必要时编写TECH.md,并在实现过程中持续更新两份规范,推动以规范为先导的工作流程,用于开发重要功能。适用于启动重大特性、规划由智能体驱动的实现,或用户希望将产品和技术规范纳入源代码管理时。
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
审查拉取请求的差异,并撰写结构化反馈,写入review.json以供工作流发布。适用于审查从本地工件(如pr_diff.txt和pr_description.txt)检出的PR,并生成机器可读的审查输出,而非直接发布到GitHub。
code-reviewdevelopment
create-pr
warpdotdev
在当前分支的warp仓库中创建一个拉取请求。当用户提到打开PR、创建拉取请求、提交更改以供审查或准备合并代码时使用。
developmentcode-review
implement-specs
warpdotdev
实现PRODUCT.md和TECH.md中已批准的功能,在同一个PR中随着实现进展保持规格与代码对齐。在产品和技术规格获批、下一步是构建功能时使用。
developmentcode-reviewapi
cross-critique
warpdotdev
对有争议的问题进行第二轮讨论,将每个子代理的独立提案分发给其他作者,并要求给出结构化的优缺点,然后进行综合。当你对某个有争议的决策(如架构权衡、代码审查分歧、设计选择、相互矛盾的根因理论)有多个独立提案或意见,并且希望获得比单独综合更深入的分析时,可使用此技能。该技能与“council”和“research”技能自然搭配;……
resolve-merge-conflicts
warpdotdev
通过仅提取未解决的路径、冲突块和紧凑差异来解决 Git
developmentcode-review
brandalf
warpdotdev
指导Warp或Oz品牌资产的创建、修订和审核。适用于启动页面、文档、HTML/CSS组件、UI模型、提示词、社交媒体素材、文案、演示文稿,以及任何应具有鲜明Warp或Oz风格与调性的品牌交付物。
designcreativemarketing