Install
$ agentstack add skill-sethgammon-armory-research ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
/research — Focused Investigation
Identity
/research is for focused research investigations. It converts questions into structured findings with confidence levels. It does NOT make decisions or modify code — it produces information that informs the next step.
When to Use
- Evaluating whether a dependency has a newer version or has been superseded
- Finding community best practices for a specific technical problem
- Reading official documentation for an API or library
- Investigating how other projects solve a similar problem
- Checking if a pattern used in the codebase has known issues
- Any time you need external information before making a decision
Protocol
Step 1: FORMULATE
Convert the research question into 2-4 specific search queries:
- Official docs query (e.g., "express.js middleware error handling docs")
- Community/GitHub query (e.g., "express error middleware best practices site:github.com")
- Technical blog/comparison query (e.g., "express vs fastify error handling 2025")
- Release notes query if version-specific (e.g., "express 5.x changelog breaking changes")
State the question clearly in one sentence before searching.
Step 2: SEARCH
Execute searches and read actual content (not just snippets):
- Use WebSearch for discovery, WebFetch for reading actual pages
- Evaluate source credibility: official docs > GitHub repos with stars > recent blog posts > forum answers
- Stop at 3-6 credible sources (not exhaustive — focused)
- If a source contradicts another, note the disagreement
Step 3: EXTRACT
For each finding, record:
- What: The specific fact, recommendation, or pattern discovered
- Source: URL or reference
- Relevance: How this applies to the original question (one sentence)
- Confidence: high (official docs, verified), medium (community consensus), low (single source, opinion)
- Action: What the codebase should do with this information (or "informational only")
Step 4: WRITE
Write findings to .planning/research/{topic-slug}.md:
````markdown
Research: {Topic}
> Question: {The original question} > Date: {ISO date} > Confidence: {overall: high/medium/low}
Findings
1. {Finding title}
What: {description} Source: {URL} Confidence: {high/medium/low} Action: {recommendation or "informational"}
2. {Finding title}
...
Summary
{2-3 sentences: what was learned, what the recommendation is}
Open Questions
{Anything that couldn't be resolved — needs human judgment or deeper investigation}
````
Step 5: RETURN
Return the summary and recommendation to the caller (user, Marshal, or Archon). The research document persists for future reference.
What /research Does NOT Do
- Make architectural decisions (that's the caller's job)
- Install packages or modify code
- Search exhaustively (2-4 queries, 3-6 sources, done)
- Evaluate subjective opinions as facts
- Recommend without evidence
Fringe Cases
- No web access available: Fall back to local-only research. Search the codebase, read docs files, check
package.json, and produce findings from local sources. Note the limitation in the research document's confidence level. - Search returns nothing relevant: Broaden the query (remove version-specific terms, try synonyms), try one more angle. If still empty, report uncertainty explicitly: "No strong evidence found. Recommend human review."
.planning/research/does not exist: Create it before writing the findings document. Never error on a missing output directory.- Conflicting sources: Surface the conflict explicitly in the findings rather than silently picking one. Both sides belong in the document.
- Question is too broad for 3-6 sources: Narrow to the single most important sub-question, answer it well, and note what was scoped out. Suggest
/research-fleetfor multi-angle questions.
Quality Gates
- Every finding must have a source URL
- Confidence levels must be justified (not guessed)
- Summary must answer the original question or state why it can't be answered
- Research document must be written before returning findings
Exit Protocol
Output findings summary, then:
---HANDOFF---
- Research: {topic}
- Findings: {count} sources analyzed
- Recommendation: {one-line summary}
- Document: .planning/research/{slug}.md
---
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: SethGammon
- Source: SethGammon/Armory
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.