Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索操作浏览器clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

targeted-tech-research有针对性的技术研究

Agent Skill

targeted-tech-research 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,599

周安装

68

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

560
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:targeted-tech-research(有针对性的技术研究)
来源仓库:https://github.com/outdog-hwh/targeted-tech-research
安装命令:
openclaw skills install targeted-tech-research
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install targeted-tech-research

简介

针对特定供应商的技术研究,对硬件、软件及协同设计进行标准化细分。

  • 适用于需要深入调研解决方案或产品技术细节的场景。
  • 通过关键词和任务线索快速定位候选技术方案。targeted-tech-research 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否涉及联网或文件操作。
  • 建议结合原始 README 核验具体用法和功能边界。

SKILL.md

name
定向技术方案深度拆解调研
description
Comprehensive deep technical research on vendor-specific technical solutions/products. Standardized output covering four core modules: Hardware Breakdown, Software Breakdown, Hardware-Software Co-Design, and Technical Benchmarking. Strictly distinguishes publicly verifiable facts from technical derivations, enabling progressive deep-diving from overall architecture down to core components/algorithms. This Skill orchestrates research logic, information analysis, and report generation. Actual scraping tasks are delegated to web-scraper and playwright-scraper. Use when user asks to research a specific technical solution, product architecture, vendor technology breakdown, or needs deep technical analysis with fact/derivation distinction. Trigger phrases include: 调研技术方案, 拆解某个产品技术, 分析某公司技术方案, 深度调研某产品, technical solution research, vendor technology breakdown, product architecture deep-dive, hardware software co-design analysis.
references

定向技术方案深度拆解调研 Skill

This Skill performs comprehensive deep technical research on vendor-specific technical solutions/products, thoroughly solving the problems of AI generating shallow webpage summaries and regurgitating marketing language.

I. Core Principles (Harness Engineering Constraints)

  • Scope Locking: All outputs must strictly correspond to "Vendor Full Name + Solution Full Model + Application Scenario". Generalized industry common knowledge is prohibited.
  • Source Attribution: 100% distinction between "Publicly Verifiable Fact" and "Technically Derived Content". Annotate at line endings: [Public: Source] or [Derived].
  • Granularity Compliance: Technical breakdowns must be precise down to "Module - Principle - Function - Interaction Logic".
  • No Marketing Fluff: Prohibits copying vendor promotional language. Only structured principle breakdowns and objective analysis.
  • Logical Consistency: Outputs across steps must be fully consistent and correspond with each other.
  • Comprehensibility-Driven: Perform limited deep-diving for missing explanations of core principles, bounded by user-specified granularity and topic scope.

II. Pre-Flight Preparation: Interactive Onboarding Questionnaire

Before starting research, confirm the following information through dialogue. Users may answer "skip" to use defaults, or use the quick-start command to bypass the questionnaire.

  1. Research Target Precision (Required): Vendor full official name, technical solution/product full model, core deployment scenario.
  2. Research Priority: Hardware / Software / Hardware-Software Co-Design / Technical Features, ordered by importance. (Default: Hardware > Co-Design > Software > Technical Features)
  3. Breakdown Granularity: Entry-level (module functions only) / Advanced (module working principles) / Extreme (component selection/algorithm logic). (Default: Advanced)
  4. Terminology Explanation Preference:

- A. Zero Explanation (assumes reader domain knowledge) - B. Minimal Contextual Explanation (≤15-word contextual note for first occurrence of non-generic terms) - C. Full Definition (2-3 sentence definition plus relevance to this solution) (Default: B)

  1. Provided Sources (Optional): User may provide patent numbers, whitepaper links, paper DOIs, etc., to be prioritized as primary sources.

Quick-Start Mode

Users can directly send a command in the following format to skip the questionnaire and use all defaults:

research [Vendor Full Name] [Solution Full Model] [Application Scenario] --quick

Example: research Framatome "Reactor Pressure Vessel Bolt Tensioning Robot System" "Nuclear Refueling Outage" --quick

The Skill will then proceed directly to Step 0 Recon with default configurations.

Pre-Flight Hook Response Handling

After invoking hooks/pre_flight_check.py, determine next actions based on the returned JSON:

  • If status is "passed": Proceed directly to Step 0 Recon.
  • If status is "incomplete":

- Use the returned prompt_for_user field to politely ask the user for missing information. Wait for user response. - Once user provides missing details, re-invoke the Skill with the complete information for re-validation.

III. Data Acquisition Strategy & Tool Selection Rules

This Skill does not directly execute network requests. All scraping tasks are delegated to sub-Skills and automatically selected according to the following rules.

3.1 Prioritize web-scraper (Lightweight Static Scraping)

Applicable for static HTML pages, RSS/Atom feeds, plain-text API responses.

3.2 Conditions to Trigger playwright-scraper (Any Match Triggers)

  • Target URL matches any rule defined in references/dynamic_sites_whitelist.json.
  • web-scraper returns content length < 200 characters, and contains keywords like loading, JavaScript, enable, please enable JavaScript.
  • User instruction explicitly includes interaction verbs (e.g., "click", "switch tab", "scroll down").
  • HTTP 403/406 is returned and response body contains no valid business data.

3.3 Low-Value Scenarios Prohibited from Triggering playwright-scraper (Blacklist)

  • Comment sections or "related articles" widgets on news/blogs (always ignored).
  • Pages requiring login or behind paywalls (immediately abandoned and marked as inaccessible).
  • Purely visual showcase pages (3D showrooms, panoramas, interactive animations).
  • PDF online preview pages (should extract direct PDF link and call pdf-reader or download directly).

3.4 Failure Handling & Degradation

  • If playwright-scraper times out (>30s), abandon the URL and continue with available data.
  • If 3 consecutive URLs time out, terminate the current scraping round and note the obstruction in the report.
  • On scraping failure, do not block subsequent steps. Instead, insert a marker in the report at the corresponding position: [Info Missing: Manual extraction needed from [Source]] and aggregate all gaps at the end of the report.

IV. 5-Step Progressive Research Workflow

Step 0: Reconnaissance & Feasibility Assessment

Goal: Quickly assess the volume and usability of public information, generate a Research Feasibility Brief, and wait for user confirmation before proceeding to deep-dive steps.

  1. Call web-scraper to search for [Vendor Full Name] [Solution Model] whitepaper and patent, obtaining titles, URLs, and snippets.
  2. If PDF links exist, attempt to extract direct links; if PDF preview page, abandon and note.
  3. If the source is a patent detail page or tech doc site (whitelisted), directly call playwright-scraper to extract key text.
  4. Content Cleaning: Before feeding scraped text to LLM, invoke the cleaning script:
   python scripts/compress_content.py --max-length 3000 < raw_text.txt > cleaned_text.txt
  1. Generate Research Feasibility Brief containing:

- Estimated volume of obtainable public information (High/Medium/Low) - List of key information sources - Recommended breakdown granularity (dynamically based on info volume) - Prompt asking user whether to continue with deep-dive steps

After user confirmation, proceed to Steps 1-5.

Step 1: Overall Architecture Anchoring & Information Boundary Mapping

  1. Context Preparation: Use the cleaned text from Step 0 as core context. If user provided private PDFs/patents, also process via scripts/compress_content.py and merge.
  2. The Skill invokes internal LLM, strictly following the Step 1 Prompt template in references/prompts.md.
  3. Output must include: Solution core positioning, layered architecture, public information boundary annotation, suggested priorities for subsequent research.
  4. Annotate each module with source: [Public: URL/Patent#] or [Derived] or [Info Missing].

Step 2: Full-Dimensional Deep-Dive on Hardware System

  1. If Step 1 reveals insufficient public info for specific hardware modules:

- Call web-scraper for supplementary searches using module names (e.g., "controller", "sensor"). - If target is a whitelisted dynamic page, call playwright-scraper.

  1. Generate initial hardware breakdown report following Step 2 Prompt template in references/prompts.md.
  2. Comprehensibility-Driven Deep-Dive Check:

- From the user's specified granularity perspective, check for logical gaps or unexplained core principles in the draft. - Trigger limited supplementary research (max 2 search rounds, strictly within topic scope) for: - Core function implementation principles (how hardware achieves its role). - Scenario-linked component selection rationale (why this specific part). - If still unclear after supplementary research, annotate [Derived: based on similar solutions] or [Manual supplement needed: background knowledge on this tech point].

  1. On scraping failure, insert [Info Missing] marker and log to gap list.

Step 3: Full-Dimensional Deep-Dive on Software System

  1. Similar to Step 2, perform supplementary scraping for software layers.
  2. Generate initial software breakdown following Step 3 Prompt template.
  3. Comprehensibility-Driven Deep-Dive Check:

- Focus on core algorithm principles: are inputs/outputs/core steps clear? - Supplementary research depth capped at "block diagram level" or "pseudocode logic level"; no deep mathematical derivations (unless user requested Extreme granularity). - If unclear, annotate [Derived].

Step 4: Hardware-Software Co-Design Full-Link Closed-Loop Principles

  1. Based on prior hardware and software breakdowns, generate initial co-design analysis.
  2. Follow Step 4 Prompt template, breaking down normal and abnormal operating conditions by time steps.
  3. Comprehensibility-Driven Deep-Dive Check:

- Check for logical gaps in timing descriptions (e.g., data sent but no receiver processing described). - Only supplement mainline flow gaps; do not expand all exception branches. - If gap info is completely missing, mark [Info Missing].

Step 5: Technical Features & Industry Benchmarking (with Credibility Scorecard)

  1. Extract core technical features, barriers, quantitative performance benchmarks, and deployment suitability.
  2. Follow Step 5 Prompt template.
  3. Concurrently generate Credibility Scorecard (embedded in Step 5 output):

- Based on preceding content, tally the ratio of facts/derivations/gaps per chapter. - Present as a Markdown table with star ratings (⭐) per chapter. - If table formatting fails, silently omit this card; do not block report generation.

  1. Output a core conclusion summary under 100 words.

Step 5.6: Generate Auxiliary Enhancements

After the main report is generated:

  1. Generate Researcher's Narrative:
   python scripts/generate_narrative.py --meta /path/to/execution_meta.json --output /tmp/narrative.txt

Insert the output into the report as Appendix C: Researcher's Narrative.

  1. Generate Reproducible Research Recipe:

Extract input and config fields from execution_meta.json and format per Appendix B in assets/report_template.md.

  1. Aggregate Information Gaps:

Compile the gap list recorded during execution into a table per Appendix A format in the template.

V. Report Output & Auxiliary Enhancement Features

5.1 Main Report Structure (User-Facing)

# [Vendor] - [Solution Full Model] Technical Research Report

## Executive Summary (≤100 words)

## Chapter 1: Overall Architecture Anchoring & Information Boundaries

## Chapter 2: Hardware System Deep-Dive

## Chapter 3: Software System Deep-Dive

## Chapter 4: Hardware-Software Co-Design Principles

## Chapter 5: Technical Features & Industry Benchmarking (incl. Credibility Scorecard)

## Appendix A: Information Gaps & Manual Intervention Suggestions
| Gap ID | Target URL | Missing Description | Suggested Manual Action |

## Appendix B: Research Recipe (Reproducible Config)
(code block)

## Appendix C: Researcher's Narrative (First-Person Reflection)
(≤150 words)

## Appendix D: Source Attribution Summary (Optional)

5.2 Auxiliary Enhancement Features (Non-Core; Fail Silently)

FeatureImplementationDegradation Strategy
Credibility ScorecardGenerated inline by LLM in Step 5. Zero extra calls.Silently omit if formatting fails.
Researcher's NarrativeGenerated by scripts/generate_narrative.py from meta JSON using templates. Zero LLM calls.Omit appendix if script fails or meta missing.
Reproducible RecipeExtracted from execution_meta.json fields. Zero LLM calls.Omit if meta missing.
Silent Evidence PackageAsync save of raw scraped text to evidence/ directory. Report links with [Evidence] anchors. Zero LLM calls.Log only; omit links if save fails.

5.3 Audit Trail Metadata (Not User-Facing; For Audit & Evaluation)

Each run generates execution_meta.json in the output directory, containing:

  • Input parameters
  • Execution statistics
  • Scraping details
  • Information boundary counts
  • Compliance check results

VI. Resource Policy & Token Efficiency Principles

This Skill adheres to the following efficiency principles to control usage costs:

  1. Minimal LLM Calls: Only the 5 core analysis steps invoke LLM. All enhancements use deterministic scripts or templates with zero extra LLM overhead.
  2. Context Compression: All scraped text is cleaned via scripts/compress_content.py before entering LLM context (tags stripped, single-source capped at 3000 chars).
  3. Step-Wise Context Reuse: Subsequent steps only reference summary conclusions from prior steps, avoiding context bloat.
  4. User-Controlled Verbosity: Users may select "Brief Mode" in the questionnaire (output compressed ~50%), or append --brief flag in quick-start.
  5. Auxiliary Features Silent Degradation: All non-core enhancements fail silently without retries or remedial LLM calls.

Estimated Token Consumption (GPT-4o equivalent, medium-info scenario):

  • Detailed report mode: ~8,000 – 15,000 tokens
  • Brief mode: ~4,000 – 7,000 tokens

VII. Quick-Start Example

Simulated complete interaction:

User: research Framatome "Reactor Pressure Vessel Bolt Tensioning Robot System" "Nuclear Refueling Outage" --quick

Skill (Internal):

  1. Adopts default config, enters Step 0 Recon.
  2. Discovers Google Patents link, triggers Playwright.
  3. Generates Feasibility Brief and automatically proceeds to deep steps (due to --quick).
  4. Executes Steps 1-5; in hardware section, notes missing hydraulic valve specs, performs one supplementary search without success, marks gap.
  5. Generates final report with scorecard, narrative, recipe, and evidence links.

Final Report Snippet:

### 2.3 Hydraulic Control Unit Core Components: Proportional servo valve [Public: Patent USXXXX]. Specific Model & Key Parameters: [Info Missing: Manual check from equipment nameplate or supplier] *(See Appendix A: Information Gap GAP-01)*

VIII. Capability Boundary Statement

This Skill Accepts:

  • Full-dimensional breakdown of targeted technical solutions (vendor+model+scenario clear).
  • Automated research based on public internet information.
  • User-provided patents/whitepapers as priority sources.

This Skill Rejects:

  • Generalized industry analysis, market research, financial analysis.
  • Bypassing login walls, paywalls, CAPTCHAs.
  • Fabricating undisclosed component parameters or algorithm details.
  • Infinite recursive deep-diving into a single technical detail (strict depth limits).

Boundary Behaviors:

  • Vague input → Guide user to refine.
  • Dynamic scraping failure → Mark gap, do not block workflow.
  • Insufficient info for specified granularity → Degrade output and inform user.

IX. Execution Directives & Exception Handling

Detailed directives and checklists are in references/rules.md. Core requirements:

  1. Scope Locking: Strict correspondence to target solution.
  2. Source Attribution: Clear distinction between fact and derivation.
  3. Granularity Compliance: No vague statements.
  4. No Marketing: No copying promotional text.
  5. Logical Consistency: Consistency across steps.
  6. Comprehensibility: Core principles must be explained within topic boundaries.

Common exceptions:

ScenarioHandling
Playwright interaction failure (tab not found)Record gap, insert [Info Missing], aggregate in Appendix A.
All scraping sub-Skills return emptyPause workflow, request user to provide private sources or adjust keywords.
Output judged as vague or marketing fluffRe-invoke step prompt with additional emphasis directive.

*This Skill follows Harness Engineering design principles, ensuring reliability, controllability, and measurability.*

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

92%
按下载量换算515

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills