Skip to content
Development
Skill

/learn

Runs a six-phase research workflow that turns unfamiliar domains, source bundles, or collected material into publish-ready output. Use when users ask in any language to research, study, deep-dive, compile sources, synthesize unfamiliar material, or turn a source bundle into a

From plugin
waza
6.8k16 skills5 agents
Install
$ npx -y skills add tw93/Waza --skill learn --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/learn

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

Runs a six-phase research workflow that turns unfamiliar domains, source bundles, or collected material into publish-ready output. Use when users ask in any language to research, study, deep-dive, compile sources, synthesize unfamiliar material, or turn a source bundle into a

SKILL.md

learn.SKILL.md
name: learn
description: "Runs a six-phase research workflow that turns unfamiliar domains, source bundles, or collected material into publish-ready output. Use when users ask in any language to research, study, deep-dive, compile sources, synthesize unfamiliar material, or turn a source bundle into a coherent reference. Not for quick lookups or single-file reads."
when_to_use: "学习一下, 深入研究, 研究一下, 整理成文章, 把这批材料整理, 一站式参考, 一篇就够, 整理成长文, research, deep dive, help me understand, compile sources, unfamiliar domain"
dispatch_intent: "Deep research, unfamiliar domain, compile sources into output"

Learn: From Raw Materials to Published Output

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

Support the user's thinking; do not replace it.

Outcome Contract

  • Outcome: unfamiliar material becomes a reliable mental model, reference, article, or notes set the user can use.
  • Done when: primary sources are collected or supplied, contradictions are handled explicitly, and the final structure teaches the topic without hiding uncertainty.
  • Evidence: source URLs or files, fetched content, notes from digestion, outline decisions, and self-review against the requested output.
  • Output: research notes, outline, publish-ready draft, or canonical reference, matching the chosen mode.

**Boundary**: single URL that only needs fetching belongs in `/read`. A single URL that needs summary or analysis can use `/read` as the fetch step, but the final answer should satisfy the user's requested summary or analysis. `/learn` is for multi-source research that produces a new structured output.

Pre-check

Check whether `/read` and `/write` skills are installed (look for their SKILL.md in the skills directories). Warn if missing, do not block:

  • `/read` missing -- Phase 1 fetch falls back to native `WebFetch` / `curl`; coverage on paywalled, JS-heavy, and Chinese-platform pages degrades.
  • `/write` missing -- Phase 5 AI-pattern stripping falls back to manual scan. Phases 1-4 are unaffected.

Choose Mode

Ask the user to confirm the mode, using the environment's native question or approval mechanism if it has one:

| Mode | Goal | Entry | Exit | |------|------|-------|------| | **Deep Research** | Understand a domain well enough to write about it | Phase 1 | Phase 6: publish-ready draft | | **Quick Reference** | Build a working mental model fast, no article planned | Phase 2 | Phase 2: notes only | | **Write to Learn** | Already have materials, force understanding through writing | Phase 3 | Phase 6: publish-ready draft | | **Canonical Article** | One article that covers a topic so thoroughly readers need nothing else | Phase 1 | Phase 6: single authoritative reference |

If unsure, suggest Quick Reference.

Canonical Article Mode

Activate when: "一篇就够", "一站式参考", "整理成长文", "目的是大家只需要看这篇就好了", or the user wants a single authoritative reference on a topic.

Goal: after reading the article, no one should need to search for anything else on this topic.

Additional requirements on top of standard Deep Research:

  • Every major sub-topic must have its own section; nothing left as a footnote
  • Include worked examples, not just principles
  • Cover common mistakes and how to avoid them
  • Add a "Further Reading" section with the 3-5 sources that go deepest; flag which ones are the best starting points
  • Phase 6 self-review must confirm: "Could a reader implement/understand this from this article alone?"

Phase 1: Collect

Gather primary sources only: papers that introduced key ideas, official lab/product blogs, posts from builders, canonical "build it from scratch" repositories. Not summaries. Not explainers.

Three ordered steps per source -- no shortcuts, no merging:

1. **Discover** -- use an installed search plugin (e.g., PipeLLM) to map the landscape, then deep-search the 2-3 most promising sub-topics. No plugin: use the environment's native web search. Output is a URL list; do not fetch content here. 2. **Fetch** -- every URL goes through `/read` when available. `/read` owns the proxy cascade, paywall detection, and platform routing (WeChat, Feishu, PDF, GitHub). Native fetch tools and raw `curl` silently fail on JS-heavy or paywalled sites and skip all of that. If `/read` is missing (Pre-check warned), fall back to native fetch and accept reduced coverage. 3. **File** -- tell `/read` the research project's source directory when one exists. If no directory was specified, let `/read` use a per-session temp directory and return the saved path. Move or index saved files into sub-topic directories after fetch returns. Move, don't refetch.

Target: 5-10 sources for a blog post, 15-20 for a deep technical survey.

Phase 2: Digest

Work through the materials. For each piece: read it fully, keep what is good, cut ruthlessly what is not.

For key claims, ask before including in the outline:

  • Does this idea appear in at least two different contexts from the same source?
  • Can this framework predict what the source would say about a new problem?
  • Is this specific to this source, or would any expert in the field say the same thing?

Generic wisdom is not worth distilling. Passes two or three: belongs in the outline. Passes one: background material. Passes zero: cut it.

Conversation Or Review Distillation

When the input is a recent conversation, project review, scorecard, or diagnostic report, treat it as raw material:

  • Prefer already-distilled summaries, memory entries, and review outputs first; open raw transcripts only to verify a disputed detail or recover the exact source of a repeated pattern.
  • Build a candidate matrix before editing durable guidance: source/project, repeated failure, transferable rule, target layer, evidence count, and redaction risk. Promote only candidates with cross-source support or a repeated failure in the same project family.
  • Extract repeated workflow failures, invariants, and verifier surfaces.
  • Drop dated line numbers, current-score framing, private paths
Read more
Ships withwaza

🥷 Engineering habits you already know, turned into skills Claude can run.

Get the whole plugin

Other skills on waza.