mcpField
C
collector-hand-skill

collector-hand-skill

github.com/rightnow-aiData & databases18.2k103 installsUpdated 24w ago
Repository

About collector-hand-skill

collector-hand-skill provides guidance for open-source intelligence collection and analysis, for research involving companies, markets, people, or technologies. It covers source evaluation, entity extraction, change detection, and report preparation.

Key features

  1. 01Plan OSINT collection cycles
  2. 02Assess sources by reliability
  3. 03Extract entities and map relationships
  4. 04Detect entity and relation changes
  5. 05Analyze sentiment and draft briefs

Use cases

  1. 01Track changes in company leadership, products, or partnerships
  2. 02Research market trends and competitors
  3. 03Synthesize multi-source findings and assess credibility

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/rightnow-ai/openfang --skill collector-hand-skill

After installing, type/collector-hand-skillin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesHAND.toml

Details

From the project README

Intelligence Collection Expert Knowledge

OSINT Methodology

Collection Cycle
  1. Planning: Define target, scope, and collection requirements
  2. Collection: Gather raw data from open sources
  3. Processing: Extract entities, relationships, and data points
  4. Analysis: Synthesize findings, identify patterns, detect changes
  5. Dissemination: Generate reports, alerts, and updates
  6. Feedback: Refine queries based on what worked and what didn't
Source Categories (by reliability)
TierSource TypeReliabilityExamples
1Official/PrimaryVery HighCompany filings, government data, press releases
2InstitutionalHighNews agencies (Reuters, AP), research institutions
3ProfessionalMedium-HighIndustry publications, analyst reports, expert blogs
4CommunityMediumForums, social media, review sites
5Anonymous/UnverifiedLowAnonymous posts, rumors, unattributed claims
Search Query Construction by Focus Area

Market Intelligence:

"[target] market share"
"[target] industry report [year]"
"[target] TAM SAM SOM"
"[target] growth rate"
"[target] market analysis"
"[target industry] trends [year]"

Business Intelligence:

"[company] revenue" OR "[company] earnings"
"[company] CEO" OR "[company] leadership team"
"[company] strategy" OR "[company] roadmap"
"[company] partnerships" OR "[company] acquisition"
"[company] annual report" OR "[company] 10-K"
site:sec.gov "[company]"

Competitor Analysis:

"[company] vs [competitor]"
"[company] alternative"
"[company] review" OR "[company] comparison"
"[company] pricing" site:g2.com OR site:capterra.com
"[company] customer reviews" site:trustpilot.com
"switch from [company] to"

Person Tracking:

"[person name]" "[company]"
"[person name]" interview OR podcast OR keynote
"[person name]" site:linkedin.com
"[person name]" publication OR paper
"[person name]" conference OR summit

Technology Monitoring:

"[technology] release" OR "[technology] update"
"[technology] benchmark [year]"
"[technology] adoption" OR "[technology] usage statistics"
"[technology] vs [alternative]"
"[technology]" site:github.com
"[technology] roadmap" OR "[technology] changelog"

Entity Extraction Patterns

Named Entity Types
  1. Person: Name, title, organization, role
  2. Organization: Company name, type, industry, location, size
  3. Product: Product name, company, category, version
  4. Event: Type, date, participants, location, significance
  5. Financial: Amount, currency, type (funding, revenue, valuation)
  6. Technology: Name, version, category, vendor
  7. Location: City, state, country, region
  8. Date/Time: Specific dates, time ranges, deadlines
Extraction Heuristics
  • Person detection: Title + Name pattern ("CEO John Smith"), bylines, quoted speakers
  • Organization detection: Legal suffixes (Inc, LLC), "at [Company]", domain names
  • Financial detection: Currency symbols, "raised $X", "valued at", "revenue of"
  • Event detection: Date + verb ("launched on", "announced at", "acquired")
  • Technology detection: CamelCase names, version numbers, "built with", "powered by"

Knowledge Graph Best Practices

Entity Schema
{
  "entity_id": "unique_id",
  "name": "Entity Name",
  "type": "person|company|product|event|technology",
  "attributes": {
    "key": "value"
  },
  "sources": ["url1", "url2"],
  "first_seen": "timestamp",
  "last_seen": "timestamp",
  "confidence": "high|medium|low"
}
Relation Schema
{
  "source_entity": "entity_id_1",
  "relation": "works_at|founded|competes_with|...",
  "target_entity": "entity_id_2",
  "attributes": {
    "since": "date",
    "context": "description"
  },
  "source": "url",
  "confidence": "high|medium|low"
}
Common Relations
RelationBetweenExample
works_atPerson → Company"Jane Smith works at Acme"
foundedPerson → Company"John Doe founded StartupX"
invested_inCompany → Company"VC Fund invested in StartupX"
competes_withCompany → Company"Acme competes with BetaCo"
partnered_withCompany → Company"Acme partnered with CloudY"
launchedCompany → Product"Acme launched ProductZ"
acquiredCompany → Company"BigCorp acquired StartupX"
usesCompany → Technology"Acme uses Kubernetes"
mentioned_inEntity → Source"Acme mentioned in TechCrunch"

Change Detection Methodology

Snapshot Comparison
  1. Store the current state of all entities as a JSON snapshot
  2. On next collection cycle, compare new state against previous snapshot
  3. Classify changes:
Change TypeSignificanceExample
Entity appearedVariesNew competitor enters market
Entity disappearedImportantCompany goes quiet, product deprecated
Attribute changedCritical-MinorCEO changed (critical), address changed (minor)
New relationImportantNew partnership, acquisition, hiring
Relation removedImportantPerson left company, partnership ended
Sentiment shiftImportantPositive→Negative media coverage
Significance Scoring
CRITICAL (immediate alert):
  - Leadership change (CEO, CTO, board)
  - Acquisition or merger
  - Major funding round (>$10M)
  - Product discontinuation
  - Legal action or regulatory issue

IMPORTANT (include in next report):
  - New product launch
  - New partnership or integration
  - Hiring surge (>5 roles)
  - Pricing change
  - Competitor move
  - Major customer win/loss

MINOR (note in report):
  - Blog post or press mention
  - Minor update or patch
  - Social media activity spike
  - Conference appearance
  - Job posting (individual)

Sentiment Analysis Heuristics

When track_sentiment is enabled, classify each source's tone:

Classification Rules
  • Positive indicators: "growth", "innovation", "breakthrough", "success", "award", "expansion", "praise", "recommend"
  • Negative indicators: "lawsuit", "layoffs", "decline", "controversy", "failure", "breach", "criticism", "warning"
  • Neutral indicators: factual reporting without strong adjectives, data-only articles, announcements
Sentiment Scoring
Strong positive: +2 (e.g., "Company wins major award")
Mild positive:   +1 (e.g., "Steady growth continues")
Neutral:          0 (e.g., "Company releases Q3 report")
Mild negative:   -1 (e.g., "Faces increased competition")
Strong negative: -2 (e.g., "Major data breach disclosed")

Track rolling average over last 5 collection cycles to detect trends.


Report Templates

Intelligence Brief (Markdown)
# Intelligence Report: [Target]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC
**Collection Cycle**: #N
**Sources Processed**: X
**New Data Points**: Y

## Priority Changes
1. [CRITICAL] [Description + source]
2. [IMPORTANT] [Description + source]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph synthesis of new intelligence]

## Detailed Findings

### [Category 1]
- Finding with [source](url)
- Data point with confidence: high/medium/low

### [Category 2]
- ...

## Entity Updates
| Entity | Change | Previous | Current | Source |
|--------|--------|----------|---------|--------|

## Sentiment Trend
| Period | Score | Direction | Notable |
|--------|-------|-----------|---------|

## Collection Metadata
- Queries executed: N
- Sources fetched: N
- New entities: N
- Updated entities: N
- Next scheduled collection: [datetime]

Source Evaluation Checklist

Before including data in the knowledge graph, evaluate:

  1. Recency: Published within relevant timeframe? Stale data can mislead.
  2. Primary vs Secondary: Is this the original source, or citing someone else?
  3. Corroboration: Do other independent sources confirm this?
  4. Bias check: Does the source have a financial or political interest in this claim?
  5. Specificity: Does it provide concrete data, or vague assertions?
  6. Track record: Has this source been reliable in the past?

If a claim fails 3+ checks, downgrade its confidence to "low".

Comments

Markdown supported