csh/playbook
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ci[bot]
2026-05-29 08:33:53 +00:00
parent fdb52f1e96
commit 06e0d13d57
1615 changed files with 232858 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/report-findings/SKILL.md
+174
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
---
name: report-findings
description: This skill should be used when synthesizing multi-source research, presenting findings with attribution, or when "report", "findings", or "synthesis" are mentioned.
metadata:
version: "1.1.0"
related-skills:
- research
- codebase-recon
- patterns
---
# Report Findings
Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.
<when_to_use>
- Synthesizing research from multiple sources
- Presenting findings with proper attribution
- Comparing options with structured analysis
- Assessing source credibility
- Documenting research conclusions
NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions
</when_to_use>
<source_authority>
| Tier | Confidence | Types | Use For |
|------|------------|-------|---------|
| **1: Primary** | 90-100% | Official docs, original research, direct observation | Factual claims, guarantees |
| **2: Secondary** | 70-90% | Expert analysis, established publications, official guides | Best practices, patterns |
| **3: Community** | 50-70% | Q&A sites, blogs, wikis, anecdotal evidence | Workarounds, pitfalls |
| **4: Unverified** | 0-50% | Unattributed, outdated, content farms, unchecked AI | Initial leads only |
See [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) for detailed assessment criteria.
</source_authority>
<cross_referencing>
## Two-Source Minimum
Never rely on single source for critical claims:
1. Find claim in initial source
2. Seek confirmation in independent source
3. If sources conflict → investigate further
4. If sources agree → moderate confidence
5. If 3+ sources agree → high confidence
## Conflict Resolution
When sources disagree:
1. **Check dates** — newer information often supersedes
2. **Compare authority** — higher tier beats lower tier
3. **Verify context** — might both be right in different scenarios
4. **Test empirically** — verify through direct observation if possible
5. **Document uncertainty** — flag if unresolved
## Triangulation
For complex questions, seek alignment across:
- **Official sources** — what should happen
- **Direct evidence** — what actually happens
- **Community reports** — what people experience
All three align → high confidence. Mismatches → investigate the gap.
</cross_referencing>
<comparison_analysis>
Three comparison methods:
| Method | When to Use |
|--------|-------------|
| **Feature Matrix** | Side-by-side capability comparison |
| **Trade-off Analysis** | Strengths/weaknesses/use cases per option |
| **Weighted Matrix** | Quantitative scoring with importance weights |
See [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) for templates and examples.
</comparison_analysis>
<synthesis_techniques>
## Extract Themes
Across sources, identify:
- **Consensus** — what everyone agrees on
- **Disagreements** — where opinions differ
- **Edge cases** — nuanced situations
## Present Findings
1. **Main answer** — clear, actionable
2. **Supporting evidence** — cite 2-3 strongest sources
3. **Caveats** — limitations, context-specific notes
4. **Alternatives** — other valid approaches
</synthesis_techniques>
<confidence_calibration>
| Level | Indicator | Criteria |
|-------|-----------|----------|
| **High** | 90-100% | 3+ tier-1 sources agree, empirically verified |
| **Moderate** | 60-89% | 2 tier-2 sources agree, some empirical support |
| **Low** | Below 60% | Single source or tier-3 only, unverified |
Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.
</confidence_calibration>
<output_format>
Standard report structure:
```markdown
## Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer }
## Key Findings
1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
## Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }
## Confidence Assessment
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%
## Sources
- [Source](url) — tier {N}
## Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }
```
See [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) for full template with guidelines.
</output_format>
<rules>
ALWAYS:
- Assess source authority before citing
- Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
- Include confidence levels with findings
- Cite sources with proper attribution
- Flag uncertainties
NEVER:
- Cite single source for critical claims
- Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
- Skip confidence calibration
- Hide conflicting sources
- Omit caveats when uncertainty exists
</rules>
<references>
- [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) — detailed authority assessment
- [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) — comparison templates
- [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) — full report structure
**Research vs Report-Findings**:
- `research` skill covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
- This skill (`report-findings`) covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation
Load this skill during research synthesis stage, or standalone for any task requiring multi-source synthesis with proper attribution.
</references>
outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/report-findings/references/comparison-methods.md
+202
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
# Comparison Methods
Structured approaches for evaluating and comparing options.
## Feature Comparison Matrix
Side-by-side feature comparison.
### Structure
```markdown
| Feature | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---------|----------|----------|----------|
| Criterion 1 | Value | Value | Value |
| Criterion 2 | Value | Value | Value |
| Criterion 3 | Value | Value | Value |
```
### Best Practices
- Use consistent value types (all quantitative or all qualitative)
- Include units for numeric values
- Mark unknown/unavailable as "N/A" or "Unknown"
- Highlight standout values (best in bold)
- Keep to 5-8 most important criteria
### Example
```markdown
| Capability | Express | Fastify | Hono |
|------------|---------|---------|------|
| Requests/sec | 15k | 30k | **60k** |
| TypeScript | Plugin | Native | **Native** |
| Bundle size | 500KB | 350KB | **14KB** |
| Learning curve | Low | Medium | Low |
```
## Trade-off Analysis
Deeper evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.
### Per-Option Analysis
For each option, document:
**Strengths**:
- What it does well
- Unique advantages
- Best use cases
**Weaknesses**:
- Limitations
- Edge cases it handles poorly
- Known issues
**Use cases**:
- When to choose this option
- Ideal scenarios
**Deal-breakers**:
- When to definitely avoid
- Hard constraints it violates
### Template
```markdown
## Option: {Name}
**Strengths**:
- {Advantage 1} — {evidence/detail}
- {Advantage 2} — {evidence/detail}
**Weaknesses**:
- {Limitation 1} — {impact}
- {Limitation 2} — {impact}
**Best for**:
- {Use case 1}
- {Use case 2}
**Avoid when**:
- {Constraint 1}
- {Constraint 2}
```
## Weighted Decision Matrix
Quantitative scoring for complex decisions.
### Process
1. **List criteria** — identify evaluation factors
2. **Assign weights** — 1-5 importance scale
3. **Score options** — 1-5 on each criterion
4. **Calculate totals** — Sum(weight x score)
5. **Interpret results** — highest total is recommended
### Template
```markdown
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| Performance | 5 | 4 (20) | 5 (25) | 3 (15) |
| Ease of use | 3 | 5 (15) | 3 (9) | 4 (12) |
| Ecosystem | 4 | 5 (20) | 3 (12) | 2 (8) |
| Cost | 2 | 3 (6) | 4 (8) | 5 (10) |
| **Total** | | **61** | **54** | **45** |
```
### Weight Guidelines
| Weight | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| 5 | Critical — must have |
| 4 | Important — strong preference |
| 3 | Moderate — nice to have |
| 2 | Minor — slight preference |
| 1 | Low — barely factors in |
### Score Guidelines
| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 5 | Excellent — best in class |
| 4 | Good — above average |
| 3 | Adequate — meets needs |
| 2 | Poor — below expectations |
| 1 | Failing — does not meet need |
## Pros/Cons List
Simple qualitative comparison.
### Structure
```markdown
## Option: {Name}
### Pros
- {Benefit 1}
- {Benefit 2}
### Cons
- {Drawback 1}
- {Drawback 2}
### Verdict
{Summary recommendation}
```
### When to Use
- Quick informal comparisons
- Binary decisions (2 options)
- Early-stage exploration
- When quantification isn't meaningful
## Decision Criteria Framework
Structured approach for defining what matters.
### Categories
**Functional Requirements**:
- Features needed
- Capabilities required
- Integration points
**Non-Functional Requirements**:
- Performance benchmarks
- Scalability needs
- Security requirements
**Operational Concerns**:
- Maintenance burden
- Monitoring/observability
- Deployment complexity
**Business Factors**:
- Cost (license, infrastructure)
- Vendor lock-in risk
- Team expertise
### Prioritization
Categorize criteria:
| Priority | Meaning | Impact on Decision |
|----------|---------|-------------------|
| Must-have | Non-negotiable | Eliminates options |
| Should-have | Strong preference | Heavy weighting |
| Nice-to-have | Bonus features | Light weighting |
## Method Selection Guide
| Situation | Recommended Method |
|-----------|-------------------|
| Quick comparison | Feature matrix |
| Complex decision | Weighted matrix |
| Stakeholder alignment | Trade-off analysis |
| Binary choice | Pros/cons list |
| Requirements gathering | Criteria framework |
outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/report-findings/references/output-template.md
+170
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
# Findings Report Template
Standard structure for presenting research findings.
## Full Report Template
```markdown
## Research Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer to research question }
## Key Findings
1. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}
2. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}
3. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}
## Comparison (if applicable)
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|
| { criterion } | { value } | { value } | { value } |
## Recommendation
### Primary: {Option Name}
**Rationale**: { detailed reasoning with evidence }
**Confidence**: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} — { explanation }
### Alternatives
- **{Option B}** — choose when { condition }
- **{Option C}** — choose when { condition }
## Confidence Assessment
Overall: {BAR} {PERCENTAGE}%
**High confidence areas**:
- { area } — { reason }
**Lower confidence areas**:
- { area } — { reason }
## Sources
- [Source 1](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }
- [Source 2](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }
- [Source 3](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }
## Caveats
- { uncertainty or limitation }
- { assumption made }
- { gap in research }
```
## Compact Report Template
For smaller findings or sub-reports.
```markdown
## {Topic}
**Finding**: { main conclusion }
**Evidence**:
- { source 1 }: { key point }
- { source 2 }: { key point }
**Confidence**: { level } — { brief rationale }
{ caveat if applicable }
```
## Section Guidelines
### Research Summary
- Lead with the answer
- 1-2 sentences maximum
- Make it actionable
**Good**: "Use Hono for new API projects; it offers 4x better performance than Express with TypeScript-first design."
**Bad**: "This report examines various web frameworks and their characteristics."
### Key Findings
- Number findings for reference
- Each finding = one clear statement
- Always cite source
- Order by importance or logical flow
### Comparison
- Use feature matrix for side-by-side
- Highlight standout values
- Include only decision-relevant criteria
- See [comparison-methods.md](comparison-methods.md)
### Recommendation
- State primary recommendation clearly
- Explain why (rationale with evidence)
- Include confidence level
- Provide alternatives with conditions
### Confidence Assessment
Use visual confidence bars:
```
High: (90-100%)
Moderate: (60-89%)
Low: (below 60%)
```
Explain what drives confidence up or down.
### Sources
- List all cited sources
- Include tier assessment
- Provide direct links
- See [source-tiers.md](source-tiers.md)
### Caveats
Include when:
- Research has gaps
- Sources conflict
- Time constraints limited depth
- Findings are context-dependent
Use indicator for visibility.
## Formatting Conventions
### Emphasis
- **Bold** for key terms and findings
- `code` for technical terms
- Links for sources
### Visual Indicators
- `HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW` — confidence levels
- Progress bars for visual confidence
- — caveats and warnings
- Tables for comparisons
### Citations
Inline: `[Source Name](url)`
Reference style: See Sources section at end
## Quality Checklist
Before delivering findings:
- [ ] Summary answers the question directly
- [ ] All findings have source citations
- [ ] Confidence level stated with rationale
- [ ] Caveats section present if uncertainty exists
- [ ] Sources include tier assessment
- [ ] Recommendation is actionable
- [ ] Alternatives provided with conditions
outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/report-findings/references/source-tiers.md
+162
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
# Source Authority Tiers
Comprehensive guide to assessing source credibility and appropriate usage.
## Tier 1: Primary Sources (90-100% confidence)
Definitive, authoritative sources from creators or standards bodies.
**Types**:
- **Official documentation** — API references, guides from maintainers
- **Original research** — peer-reviewed studies, verified data
- **Direct observation** — first-hand evidence, tested behavior
- **Canonical references** — specifications, RFCs, standards documents
**Use for**:
- Factual claims about behavior
- API signatures and parameters
- Performance guarantees
- Version compatibility statements
**Characteristics**:
- Created by authoritative source
- Regularly maintained
- Clear versioning
- Accountable authors
**Examples**:
- React documentation from reactjs.org
- RFC 7231 for HTTP semantics
- MDN Web Docs for browser APIs
- TypeScript Handbook from typescriptlang.org
## Tier 2: Authoritative Secondary (70-90% confidence)
Expert analysis and recognized publications.
**Types**:
- **Expert analysis** — recognized authorities in field
- **Established publications** — reputable sources with editorial standards
- **Official guides** — sanctioned tutorials, not canonical reference
- **Conference materials** — talks from recognized experts
**Use for**:
- Best practices and patterns
- Architecture recommendations
- Trade-off analysis
- Implementation strategies
**Characteristics**:
- Author has demonstrated expertise
- Editorial review process
- Citations to primary sources
- Generally current
**Examples**:
- Martin Fowler's blog on architecture
- InfoQ articles with expert authors
- Conference talks from framework maintainers
- O'Reilly technical books
## Tier 3: Community Sources (50-70% confidence)
Collective wisdom and practical experience.
**Types**:
- **Community discussions** — Stack Overflow, GitHub discussions
- **Individual analysis** — technical blogs, personal research
- **Crowd-sourced content** — wikis, collaborative documentation
- **Anecdotal evidence** — reported experiences, case studies
**Use for**:
- Practical workarounds
- Common pitfalls and gotchas
- Real-world usage patterns
- Troubleshooting approaches
**Characteristics**:
- May be outdated
- Quality varies significantly
- Often context-specific
- Needs cross-referencing
**Examples**:
- Stack Overflow answers (highly voted)
- GitHub issue discussions
- Dev.to technical articles
- Reddit technical discussions
## Tier 4: Unverified (0-50% confidence)
Use only as starting points for investigation.
**Types**:
- **Unattributed content** — no clear author or source
- **Outdated material** — age unknown or clearly stale
- **Questionable provenance** — content farms, SEO-driven sites
- **Unchecked AI content** — generated without human verification
**Use for**:
- Initial leads only
- Must verify against higher tiers
- Never cite directly
**Warning signs**:
- No author attribution
- No dates or version numbers
- Multiple ads, clickbait titles
- Generic, shallow content
- Copied from other sources
## Tier Assessment Checklist
When evaluating a source:
| Factor | Higher Tier | Lower Tier |
|--------|-------------|------------|
| Author | Known expert | Anonymous/unknown |
| Publisher | Authoritative org | Content farm |
| Date | Recent, maintained | Old, no updates |
| Citations | Links to sources | No references |
| Depth | Detailed, nuanced | Surface-level |
| Accuracy | Verifiable claims | Unverifiable |
## Usage Guidelines
### For Critical Claims
Require Tier 1 or multiple Tier 2 sources:
- Security recommendations
- Performance guarantees
- Breaking changes
- Migration paths
### For Best Practices
Accept Tier 2, cross-reference with Tier 3:
- Architecture patterns
- Code organization
- Testing strategies
- Tooling choices
### For Troubleshooting
Start with Tier 3, verify against Tier 1-2:
- Error solutions
- Workarounds
- Configuration tips
- Environment setup
## Confidence Adjustments
Factors that increase confidence:
- Multiple independent sources agree
- Source is recent and maintained
- Claims are testable and verified
- Author has relevant expertise
Factors that decrease confidence:
- Single source only
- Source is outdated
- Claims contradict other sources
- Author expertise unclear