CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

best-practice-research

[OMX] Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first

58

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/oh-my-codex/skills/best-practice-research/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Best-Practice Research

Use this skill when a task depends on current external best practices, version-aware guidance, standards, official recommendations, or upstream behavior. This is a workflow wrapper: it routes evidence gathering and synthesis; it is not a new research authority and it does not replace researcher.

Purpose

Produce a cited, reusable best-practice answer or handoff that separates current external evidence from repo-local facts and dependency-selection decisions. For pre-planning investigation, this is the ordinary first research wrapper: gather official/upstream evidence, then hand it to $ralplan or the caller as planning input. Do not present $best-practice-research as a final architecture component or as a validator-gated research loop.

Terminal By Default

This skill is terminal and read-only by default. It gathers evidence and produces a cited recommendation with a handoff, then stops. Do not write or edit files, create or amend commits, run mutating commands, or otherwise modify repository state under this skill — even when the question has clear implementation implications. When implementation is warranted, stop and hand off rather than continuing: name $ralplan for planning and $ultragoal, $team, or executor for execution, and resume only after the user explicitly switches to that workflow.

Activate When

  • The user asks for best practices, recommended approach, current guidance, official recommendations, standards, or version-aware external behavior.
  • $ralplan, $deep-interview, $team, or another workflow needs current external evidence before planning or execution can be correct.
  • The task involves an already chosen technology and needs authoritative usage guidance, migration notes, API behavior, lifecycle rules, or current safety guidance.

Do Not Activate When

  • The answer is fully repo-local; use explore for codebase facts.
  • The main question is whether to adopt, replace, upgrade, or compare dependencies; use dependency-expert.
  • The user only needs implementation against already-grounded requirements; use executor, $ralph, or $team as appropriate.
  • The task can be answered from stable local project conventions without current external lookup.

Specialist Routing

  1. Use explore first for brownfield facts: current code usage, local constraints, versions, config, and integration points.
  2. Use researcher for official/upstream docs, release notes, standards, migration guides, source-backed examples, and current best-practice evidence for an already chosen technology.
  3. Use dependency-expert only for adoption/upgrade/replacement/comparison decisions.
  4. Return to the caller with explicit evidence, uncertainty, and any implementation handoff constraints.

Source-Quality Rules

  • Prefer official documentation, upstream source, release notes, changelogs, standards, and maintainer guidance.
  • Include source URLs for material claims.
  • State date/version context for current best-practice claims.
  • Label third-party summaries as supplemental; do not use them before official/upstream sources.
  • Flag stale, conflicting, undocumented, or version-mismatched evidence.
  • Do not over-fetch: gather the smallest evidence set that can support the decision.

Workflow

  1. Classify the question: conceptual best practice, implementation guidance, migration/version guidance, standards/compliance guidance, or mixed local + external guidance.
  2. Gather repo-local facts with explore when local usage or constraints affect the answer.
  3. Gather external evidence with researcher when current or version-aware practice affects correctness.
  4. Synthesize a concise answer with source quality, version/date context, caveats, and an implementation or planning handoff.
  5. Stop when the answer is grounded enough for the caller; otherwise report the exact blocker or specialist handoff needed.

Output Contract

## Best-Practice Research: <question>

### Direct Recommendation
<actionable guidance or decision support>

### Evidence Used
- Official/upstream: <source URL> — <what it establishes>
- Supplemental, if any: <source URL> — <why it is secondary>

### Version / Date Context
<versions, dates, release channels, or unknowns>

### Repo-Local Context
<facts from explore, or "not needed">

### Boundaries / Non-goals
<what this research does not decide>

### Handoff
<planning/execution/test implications; name the next workflow — `$ralplan` for planning, `$ultragoal`/`$team`/`executor` for execution — and note that this skill stops here unless the user explicitly switches workflows>

Stop Rules

  • Stop after a source-backed recommendation is reusable by the caller.
  • Stop and route upward if the task becomes dependency comparison, broad architecture, or implementation.
  • Do not continue researching when remaining work would only polish wording rather than change the recommendation.
  • This skill never implements. After delivering the recommendation and handoff, stop; do not modify repo files or repo state. Resume only when the user explicitly switches to a planning or implementation workflow named in the handoff.

Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}

Repository
Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex
Last updated
First committed

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.