Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add restarter/lets-workflow/plugin install letsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/restarter/lets-workflow/research-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/restarter/lets-workflow/research-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/restarter/lets-workflow/research-workflow/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/restarter/lets-workflow/research-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/restarter/lets-workflow/research-workflow.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00054 | $0.01764 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00706 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00353 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
research-workflow scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 20d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
research-workflow (Dynamic Workflow asset)
A Dynamic Workflow asset (see CLAUDE.md -> "Dynamic Workflow Assets"; review-workflow is the reference example). research.workflow.js is executed by the Workflow tool, invoked from /lets:research's Workflow Mode via:
Workflow({ scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/research-workflow/research.workflow.js", args })
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} is substituted at command-load time, so research.md carries the literal absolute path. Treat research.workflow.js as a template the command points at, not a script to reproduce inline.
Why this is a transparent performance lever (not autonomous)
/lets:research --workflow runs the SAME stages as the standard Task path - only the per-sub-question search dumps and per-claim verdicts stay off-context. The decompose (break the question into 3-6 sub-questions) stays IN-CONTEXT in research.md so the user can steer the angles; the per-sub-question web research and the per-claim cross-check move into the workflow (off-context); the final synthesis happens in-context after the aggregate returns. The standard path runs the equivalent stages in-context: per-sub-question research fanned out across multiple DEFAULT web Task subagents, per-claim lets:skeptic via Task. Crucially: the verify stage is a cross-check (single-source / contradicted / low-confidence flags), never a claim that the fact is confirmed correct - the skeptic has no web tools and cannot re-fetch URLs.
What it does (off-context)
- Research - per-sub-question fan-out via the DEFAULT web subagent (no
agentType; the default workflow subagent CAN WebSearch/WebFetch -lets:*agents have no web tools and CANNOT). Each subagent returns its 2-5 strongest claims (FINDING_SCHEMA: claim, evidence, sources, confidence) withevidencecarrying QUOTED/paraphrased source material (the downstream skeptic judges "unsupported" against this string and has no web tool), and self-reportsused_web_search=falserather than fabricate.mergeClaimsdedupes by normalized claim text, unioning sources and keeping the highest confidence. - Verify - per-claim
lets:skepticRESEARCH-VERIFY pass over the merged claims. The skeptic is handed each claim's evidence + its siblings (same sub-question) and flags STRUCTURAL weakness: unsupported (evidence does not back the claim) or contradicted (conflicts with a sibling). Single-source / low-confidence are computed deterministically by the script (those claims skip the skeptic - the deterministic flag already fires).applyVerdictsattaches aflagged[]array per claim - ADDITIVE, never drops a claim (research facts accumulate; departure from review's drop rule). Contradiction flagging is the skeptic's job comparing siblings - there is deliberately NO deterministic contradiction pass.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 20d ago Changed fd7515c390e7
- 1mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 8eab0c788d15
research-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository restarter/lets-workflow (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,764 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
coding-principles
Language-agnostic coding principles for maintainability, readability, and quality. Use when implementing features, refactoring code, or reviewing code quality.
spike-consumer-baseline
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer skill, BASELINE arm. Builds an incident post-mortem and sources the readability standard mid-workflow by reading a file directly, with NO Skill-tool call. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.
spike-consumer-adversarial
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.
alive:system-cleanup
The world feels messy. Stale tasks, orphan folders, v2 remnants, unsaved sessions — entropy is accumulating and needs to be addressed before it compounds. Scans across all walnuts, then surfaces issues one at a time.
alive:world
The human doesn't know what to work on, or wants to see everything at once. They need the big picture — what's active, what's stale, what needs attention. Renders a live world view grouped by ALIVE domain, then routes to open, tidy, find, history, or map.