release: v0.20 Codex-ready skill-driven core
This commit is contained in:
kai
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: search-strategy
|
||||
description: 生物医药深度研究的统一检索策略。规定信源优先级、检索轮次、关键词构造、API 路由，以及何时切换到专业信源。所有做信息收集的 worker/agent 必须加载此技能。
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Search Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Rule
|
||||
|
||||
Do not send Chinese chapter titles, interview paragraphs, or full task-card text directly to search APIs. For formal search, first convert the task into short English query terms plus axis terms, then add source/domain constraints when useful.
|
||||
|
||||
## Query Construction
|
||||
|
||||
Build every query from three parts:
|
||||
|
||||
- `entity/domain`: the object or field, such as `pharmaceutical`, `biologics`, `sterile drug`, `CDMO`, `quality system`.
|
||||
- `axis`: the research axis, such as `CAPA deviation change control`, `aseptic processing process validation PPQ`, `quality metrics management review`.
|
||||
- `evidence type`: the evidence to retrieve, such as `Warning Letter`, `meeting materials`, `guidance`, `systematic review`, `patent`, `best practices`.
|
||||
|
||||
Default English query length is 5-12 keywords. Chinese terms are useful for NMPA, local industry sources, and internal-material matching, but Chinese long sentences must not be the default query form.
|
||||
|
||||
For route-specific searches, do not append the original Chinese chapter title after the English query. If chapter context is needed, map the chapter to short English concept terms first, such as `commercial readiness phase gate`, `aseptic processing`, `quality metrics management review`, or `CAPA effectiveness check`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Route Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- `fda`: use `site:fda.gov` plus `Warning Letter`, `inspection`, `enforcement`, `meeting materials`, or `meeting minutes`, then add the axis terms.
|
||||
- `scholar`: use technical/scientific terms plus `review`, `validation`, `risk management`, `quality system`, or disease/mechanism terms.
|
||||
- `evidence`: use Exa highlights for controlled evidence discovery when a packet needs concise source-level excerpts; still trace important hits back to original Tier 1-2 sources.
|
||||
- `patents`: use technology route plus material, target, process, formulation, device, or manufacturing terms.
|
||||
- `news`: use company/industry plus event type and recency terms.
|
||||
- `general`: use Tavily/Exa/Brave for discovery and gap filling; trace useful hits back to Tier 1-2 original sources before citing. Do not route generic web discovery through Serper by default.
|
||||
- `tavily_research` conceptually means a phase-level scan, not a normal packet route. Save the research result, score/deduplicate sources, then convert it into candidate evidence before writing claims.
|
||||
|
||||
## GMP/FDA Examples
|
||||
|
||||
Bad query:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
围绕《审计发现应先转化为商业化阶段门缺口，而不是停留在风险项计数》从质量体系角度提炼可证伪的核心结论
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Good queries:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
site:fda.gov "Warning Letter" CGMP CAPA deviation change control data integrity pharmaceutical
|
||||
site:fda.gov "meeting materials" "pharmaceutical quality" "quality metrics"
|
||||
site:fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations "Warning Letter" aseptic processing process validation
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Priority
|
||||
|
||||
- Tier 1: regulator, guideline, pharmacopeia, primary literature, trial registry, patent original, company filing.
|
||||
- Tier 2: systematic review, recognized consulting or industry association report, professional database/media.
|
||||
- Tier 3: conference abstract, broker report, preprint, vendor white paper.
|
||||
- Tier 4: generic web search result; discovery only, not conclusion support.
|
||||
|
||||
## Four-Round Search Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
1. Tier 1 direct hit: regulator, PubMed/Scholar, trial registry, patent original, or official filing.
|
||||
2. Tier 2 synthesis: recognized review, guideline interpretation, consulting/association report.
|
||||
3. Counter-evidence: limitations, failures, enforcement actions, contradictory interpretations.
|
||||
4. Gap fill: Exa evidence discovery or Tavily/Brave general discovery, then trace back to original sources. Use Serper here only for Google-specific needs such as `site:` targeting, Scholar, Patents, or News.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tavily Research vs Exa Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- Tavily Research is best for Phase 1 initial landscape scans, thin-chapter补证据, and Phase 3回炉. Prompt in English, specify source priority, counter-evidence, and structured output. Do not cite its synthesized prose directly.
|
||||
- Exa evidence discovery is best for Phase 2 packet work because highlights/text are compact enough for source-quality scoring and evidence-table mapping.
|
||||
- Serper remains preferred for Scholar, Google Patents, News, and Google-specific `site:` targeting.
|
||||
- Brave remains a cross-check and mixed-language fallback, not the first evidence route.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Packet Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- Put search keywords or route notes in `raw_quotes_or_notes` when evidence is weak or no suitable source was found.
|
||||
- FDA/GMP tasks must explicitly check Warning Letters, inspection/enforcement pages, and meeting materials/minutes.
|
||||
- Do not cite search snippets as final evidence when an original regulator, guideline, paper, or official PDF can be reached.
|
||||
- If the candidate sources are not sufficient, stop and record the gap in `open_questions` instead of writing generic prose.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user