· 1 observation
Technical updates · 1
Package or technical metadata updated
View technical comparison →The Doers Firm v0.1.0
Analyze papers, evidence
From the developer
Not specified in the available declarations: limitations, pricing & account requirements.
Find and synthesize research on this question.
Developer declarations; not independently tested. Listing last checked Nov 5, 2026. Package observed Nov 5, 2026.
From the marketplace listing
Research Assistant is a multi-skill research workspace for academic papers, current web research, product and competitor research, and cross-source evidence synthesis. It refines questions, evaluates sources, compares claims, identifies disagreements and gaps, and produces source-linked conclusions without inventing citations.
Language: English · Automatically detected from descriptions.
Exact text from the indicated source. A mention alone does not establish support for your task.
Research Assistant is a multi-skill research workspace for academic papers, current web research, product and competitor research, and cross-source evidence synthesis. It refines questions, evaluates sources, compares claims, identifies disagreements and gaps, and produces source-linked conclusions without inventing citations.
· 1 observation
Package or technical metadata updated
View technical comparison →· 2 observations
Package or technical metadata updated
View technical comparison →· 2 observations
Package or technical metadata updated
View technical comparison →Package or technical metadata updated
View technical comparison →Find competitors to follow as you develop your plugin.
Plan, conduct, compare, and synthesize web research with transparent sources and uncertainty.
Shared terms: citation, claim, evaluate, gaps
Find scholarly papers and grants, evaluate evidence, develop research questions, synthesize literature, improve academic writing, and man...
Shared terms: paper, academic, evaluate, synthesize
Research scientific literature, critically read and compare papers, explore evidence gaps, draft cited academic documents, and organize r...
Shared terms: paper, academic, citation, cross
Heatseeker helps marketing teams inspect ad experiments, imported campaign performance, audience research, and AI personas from their wor...
Shared terms: analyze, cross, evidence, research
Search your AcaTrove research library, track projects, tasks and deadlines, find grant opportunities, and manage publications and evidenc...
Shared terms: paper, evidence, research, workspace
--- name: academic-research description: Find, evaluate, compare, and synthesize academic papers and scholarly evidence. --- # Academic Research Use for literature reviews, paper discovery, methodology comparison, citation support, and research-gap analysis. ## Method 1. Refine the question into population, intervention or exposure, comparison, outcome, context, and date scope where applicable. 2. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria before collecting sources for a review. 3. Prefer original peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, official datasets, and clearly labeled preprints. 4. Extract each paper's question, design, sample, data, measures, result, limitations, and relevance. 5. Distinguish correlation from causation, statistical from practical significance, and author claims from synthesis. 6. Explain disagreements through differences in population, methods, measures, assumptions, or timeframe. 7. Identify gaps as missing populations, outcomes, methods, replication, implementation contexts, or unresolved contradictions. Never fabricate authors, dates, journals, DOIs, quotations, sample sizes, or effect sizes. Label preprints and secondary summaries accurately.
--- name: evidence-synthesis description: Combine heterogeneous sources into a transparent evidence brief with confidence, limitations, and disagreements. --- # Evidence Synthesis Use when the user provides multiple sources or asks for a conclusion across papers, reports, datasets, interviews, or web pages. ## Method 1. Create a claim inventory and map each claim to supporting or contradicting evidence. 2. Assess directness, authority, methodology, sample or data quality, recency, and independence. 3. Keep incompatible populations, outcomes, and definitions separate. 4. Label conclusions as strong, moderate, limited, mixed, or not established, explaining why. 5. Report missing evidence, possible bias, alternative explanations, and confidence limits. 6. Make recommendations only after separating evidence from judgment and assumptions. Use a table with `Claim`, `Evidence`, `Agreement or conflict`, `Limitations`, and `Confidence` when it improves clarity.
--- name: product-research description: Research products, competitors, markets, customers, pricing, and positioning for product decisions. --- # Product Research Use for competitor analysis, market scans, customer-problem research, pricing comparisons, product positioning, and buy/build decisions. ## Method 1. Define the decision, target segment, geography, timeframe, and comparison criteria. 2. Separate direct competitors, substitutes, adjacent tools, and non-consumption. 3. Gather evidence on capabilities, pricing, limits, target users, distribution, claims, and observable user experience. 4. Distinguish verified facts from vendor claims, reviews, inference, and recommendation. 5. Normalize pricing units and plan terms before comparing them. 6. End with a decision matrix, gaps in evidence, and what should be validated with real users. Do not invent market size, customer counts, revenue, satisfaction, or competitor capabilities. Avoid copying marketing language as if it were independent evidence.
--- name: research-assistant description: Support academic research with question refinement, paper discovery, methods comparison, evidence synthesis, and accurate citations. --- # Research Assistant Use this skill for academic research, literature reviews, evidence synthesis, paper comparison, citation support, and research-gap analysis. ## Research protocol 1. Refine the research question into population, intervention or exposure, comparison, outcome, context, and date scope when applicable. 2. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria before collecting papers when the user requests a review or systematic comparison. 3. Prefer original peer-reviewed papers, official datasets, preprints clearly labeled as such, and authoritative evidence reviews. 4. For each important paper, record the question, design, sample, intervention or exposure, outcome, main result, limitations, and relevance. 5. Distinguish correlation from causation, exploratory from confirmatory analysis, statistical significance from practical significance, and author claims from the plugin's synthesis. 6. Compare papers by population, methods, measurements, timeframe, assumptions, and quality—not only by conclusion. 7. Explain disagreement rather than averaging incompatible findings. 8. Identify evidence gaps, replication concerns, publication bias, confounders, and generalizability limits when relevant. ## Output modes ### Literature review Return scope and criteria, a paper table, thematic synthesis, methodological limitations, disagreements, research gaps, and a properly formatted reference list. ### Paper summary Use: research question, method, sample or data, results, limitations, practical meaning, and questions for follow-up. ### Paper comparison Use a consistent table with citation, population, design, data, intervention or exposure, outcome, main finding, limitations, and confidence. ### Evidence brief Start with the answer, then provide the strongest evidence, uncertainty, alternative explanations, and implications. ### Research-gap analysis Separate gaps that are missing populations, missing outcomes, weak methods, unresolved contradictions, outdated evidence, or untested implementation contexts. ## Citation integrity - Cite only papers or sources actually located or supplied. - Link to the paper landing page, DOI, publisher page, or reliable repository. - Never fabricate authors, dates, journal names, DOIs, quotations, sample sizes, or effect sizes. - Label preprints, conference abstracts, reviews, and secondary summaries accurately. - Quote sparingly and keep quotations short; prefer faithful paraphrase. ## Safety and scope For medical, legal, or other high-stakes questions, explain that research synthesis is not professional advice and highlight study limitations. Do not convert weak or preliminary evidence into a definitive recommendation.
--- name: web-research description: Conduct current web research with source evaluation, claim comparison, citations, and freshness checks. --- # Web Research Use for current events, organizations, products, services, regulations, technical documentation, and general fact-finding. ## Method 1. Break the request into answerable subquestions. 2. Prefer primary sources: official documentation, government pages, direct announcements, filings, original datasets, and first-party product pages. 3. Record publication date, event date, source type, relevant claim, and limitations. 4. Compare independent sources and flag conflicting definitions or stale information. 5. Cite direct source URLs near every material current or non-obvious claim. Never treat search snippets as evidence. Never present stale information as current. State the research date when freshness matters.
Publisher declarations from the archived package. These are separate from our research and the live service's terms.
Package observed Nov 5, 2026.
plugins_6aaf8b96a7608191b4df1aa62ad54249
Download plugin data (JSON)