git:20260201.46feff6 to git:20260201.f206a57

---

name: github-deep-research

description: Conduct multi-round deep research on any GitHub Repo. Use when users request comprehensive analysis, timeline reconstruction, competitive analysis, or in-depth investigation of GitHub. Produces structured markdown reports with executive summaries, chronological timelines, metrics analysis, and Mermaid diagrams. Triggers on Github repository URL or open source projects.

---

# GitHub Deep Research Skill

Multi-round research combining GitHub API, web_search, web_fetch to produce comprehensive markdown reports.

## Research Workflow

## Core Methodology

### Query Strategy

**Broad to Narrow**: Start with GitHub API, then general queries, refine based on findings.

```

Round 1: GitHub API

Round 2: "{topic} overview"

Round 3: "{topic} architecture", "{topic} vs alternatives"

Round 4: "{topic} issues", "{topic} roadmap", "site:github.com {topic}"

```

**Source Prioritization**:

1. Official docs/repos (highest weight)

2. Technical blogs (Medium, Dev.to)

3. News articles (verified outlets)

4. Community discussions (Reddit, HN)

5. Social media (lowest weight, for sentiment)

### Research Rounds

**Round 1 - GitHub API**

Directly execute `scripts/github_api.py` without `read_file()`:

```bash

```

**Round 2 - Discovery (3-5 web_search)**

- Get overview and identify key terms

- Find official website/repo

- Identify main players/competitors

**Round 3 - Deep Investigation (5-10 web_search + web_fetch)**

- Technical architecture details

- Timeline of key events

- Community sentiment

- Use web_fetch on valuable URLs for full content

- Analyze commit history for timeline

- Review issues/PRs for feature evolution

- Check contributor activity

## Report Structure

Follow template in `assets/report_template.md`:

1. **Metadata Block** - Date, confidence level, subject

2. **Executive Summary** - 2-3 sentence overview with key metrics

3. **Chronological Timeline** - Phased breakdown with dates

4. **Key Analysis Sections** - Topic-specific deep dives

5. **Metrics & Comparisons** - Tables, growth charts

6. **Strengths & Weaknesses** - Balanced assessment

7. **Sources** - Categorized references

8. **Confidence Assessment** - Claims by confidence level

9. **Methodology** - Research approach used

### Mermaid Diagrams

Include diagrams where helpful:

**Timeline (Gantt)**:

```mermaid

gantt

title Project Timeline

dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD

section Phase 1

Development :2025-01-01, 2025-03-01

section Phase 2

Launch :2025-03-01, 2025-04-01

```

**Architecture (Flowchart)**:

```mermaid

flowchart TD

A[User] --> B[Coordinator]

B --> C[Planner]

C --> D[Research Team]

D --> E[Reporter]

```

**Comparison (Pie/Bar)**:

```mermaid

pie title Market Share

"Project A" : 45

"Project B" : 30

"Others" : 25

```

## Confidence Scoring

Assign confidence based on source quality:

| Confidence | Criteria |

|------------|----------|

| High (90%+) | Official docs, GitHub data, multiple corroborating sources |

| Medium (70-89%) | Single reliable source, recent articles |

| Low (50-69%) | Social media, unverified claims, outdated info |

## Output

Save report as: `research_{topic}_{YYYYMMDD}.md`

### Formatting Rules

- Chinese content: Use full-width punctuation（，。：；！？）

- Technical terms: Provide Wiki/doc URL on first mention

- Tables: Use for metrics, comparisons

- Code blocks: For technical examples

- Mermaid: For architecture, timelines, flows

## Best Practices

1. **Start with official sources** - Repo, docs, company blog

2. **Verify dates from commits/PRs** - More reliable than articles

3. **Triangulate claims** - 2+ independent sources

4. **Note conflicting info** - Don't hide contradictions

5. **Distinguish fact vs opinion** - Label speculation clearly

6. **Cite inline** - Reference sources near claims

7. **Update as you go** - Don't wait until end to synthesize