Storm research

Skill MaddyMOK/claude-skills/skills/storm-research

A growing library of 100+ Claude Skills — copy-paste capabilities that turn Claude into a researcher, analyst, writer, and more. Install-ready .skill files.

Install

npx -y skills add MaddyMOK/claude-skills --skill storm-research

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Turn Claude into a multi-perspective researcher using the STORM method — analyze a topic through several distinct expert lenses, map where they contradict each other, synthesize a single ranked research report, and peer-review the result. Use this whenever the user wants deep research, a thorough analysis, a "PhD-level" or rigorous breakdown of a topic, a balanced multi-viewpoint take, a literature-review-style summary, or explicitly mentions STORM, multi-perspective research, or turning Claude into a researcher. Prefer this over a single flat answer any time the user asks to "really dig into," "research," "give me the full picture on," or "analyze from every angle" a non-trivial topic.

SKILL.md

5.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

STORM Research

A four-phase research method that produces grounded, multi-perspective analysis instead of a single flat answer. Inspired by Stanford OVAL Lab's STORM paper (Shao et al., NAACL 2024), adapted into a repeatable prompt pipeline.

The core idea: don't ask one question from one angle — interrogate a topic through several distinct experts, surface where they disagree, then synthesize and self-review. This reliably produces more organized, better-calibrated output than a one-shot answer.

When to use

Trigger this skill when the user wants genuine depth on a non-trivial topic: research requests, "analyze this from every angle," decision memos, literature-review-style summaries, contested or high-stakes questions, or any explicit mention of STORM / multi-perspective research. Skip it for simple factual lookups or quick answers — the overhead isn't worth it there.

Two modes (pick based on the topic and any user flag)

--grounded (default for current/empirical/contested topics): Run a web_search for each perspective and cite sources inline. Use this whenever facts may have changed, numbers matter, or claims are disputable.
--reasoning (fast, no web): Reason from existing knowledge only. Use for conceptual, philosophical, or timeless topics, or when the user explicitly wants speed / no browsing.

If the user gives no flag, infer: anything touching current events, markets, technology versions, statistics, or "what's the latest" → grounded. Pure concepts, frameworks, or thought experiments → reasoning is fine. When unsure, default to grounded.

Phase control

The user controls how the four phases run. Match their earlier instruction if they gave one; otherwise ask once at the start:

Auto (one pass): Run all four phases and return the full report in a single response.
Step-by-step: Run one phase, show the output, and pause for the user to say "continue" before the next. Good for steering mid-research.

If the user hasn't indicated a preference and the topic is large, default to step-by-step so they can course-correct. For quick topics, auto is fine.

The Four Phases

Run these in order. Full prompt templates and the exact expert-lens definitions live in references/phases.md — read that file before executing so you use the precise wording and structure.

Phase 1 — Multi-Perspective Scan

Analyze the topic through five distinct expert lenses, each with its own priorities, blind spots, and vocabulary:

Practitioner — what actually works in the field, hands-on tradeoffs
Researcher / Academic — evidence base, theory, what's proven vs. hypothesized
Skeptic / Critic — failure modes, weak assumptions, what could be wrong
Economist / Incentives — costs, benefits, who gains, second-order effects
Historian / Context — how we got here, prior attempts, what's genuinely new

In --grounded mode, search per lens and cite. Keep each lens genuinely distinct — do not let them collapse into the same voice.

Phase 2 — Contradiction Map

Cross-examine the five perspectives:

Where do they directly disagree, and on what?
Which claims have the strongest evidence? Which are weakest / most speculative?
What did every perspective miss (blind spots common to all)?
Which disagreements are empirical (resolvable with data) vs. values-based (won't resolve)?

Phase 3 — Synthesis

Combine everything into one coherent research report:

A clear thesis / bottom line up top
Ranked findings — most to least well-supported, with confidence noted
Actionable insights or recommendations
Open questions that remain genuinely unresolved

Phase 4 — Peer Review

Have Claude critically grade its own Phase 3 report:

Overall confidence (0–100%) with justification
Weakest claim in the report and why
Bias check — what viewpoint is over/under-weighted?
Missing angles — perspectives or evidence not covered
One concrete revision that would most improve it

Output conventions

Label each phase clearly (## Phase 1 — Multi-Perspective Scan, etc.).
In grounded mode, cite sources for factual claims; keep the five lenses visibly separate.
Keep the report readable prose, not a wall of bullets — reserve ranked lists for the findings in Phase 3 and the review in Phase 4.
End Phase 4 with a one-line honest verdict on how much to trust the report.

For the full prompt wording and lens details, see references/phases.md.