| name | loom-research |
| description | Preserve reusable investigations. Use when compatibility, framework/library behavior, tradeoffs, rejected options, null results, performance/security/migration evidence, or external-source synthesis should remain citable. |
| compatibility | Markdown-native, script-free Loom protocol. |
| metadata | {"skill_kind":"owner-layer","owns_layer":"research"} |
loom-research
Research owns reusable discovery.
Use it when the work would benefit from not having to rediscover the same reasoning later.
Research may use an optional source-material store at
.loom/research/artifacts/<research-slug>/ for articles, fetched web pages, PDFs,
papers, repository snapshots, exported notes, model/advisor outputs, or other raw
inputs that helped the investigation. That directory is support material, usually
gitignored, and may be absent. The research record remains primary: it owns the
synthesis, source evaluation, conclusions, limitations, and downstream route.
What This Skill Owns
- investigations
- option comparisons
- experiments
- spike and sketch conclusions as research variants when discovery should remain
citable
- evidence synthesis
- optional source-material stores under
.loom/research/artifacts/<research-slug>/
- rejected options and null results worth preserving
- deferred questions that are not yet ready for their own investigation
- conclusions and recommendations grounded in evidence
Use This Skill When
- the project lacks evidence for a decision
- multiple options need comparison
- an experiment result should remain citable
- a spike or sketch produced conclusions, rejected variants, or null results
that should become reusable research; use optional
loom-spike or an
equivalent exploration workflow for procedural spike or sketch detail
- a significant implementation discovery should survive beyond the ticket journal
- a rejected option or null result would otherwise have to be rediscovered
- open questions are accumulating and need a durable home before they are ready to be investigated
Do Not Use This Skill When
- the work is now a behavior contract
- the work is now a rollout strategy
- the work is just live progress tracking
Good Research Questions
A strong research note answers:
- what was being investigated
- why it mattered
- how it was investigated
- what evidence was gathered
- what conclusions are justified
- what downstream work should do next
- which options, hypotheses, or variants were rejected and why
- what remains uncertain
Common Rationalizations
- Rationalization: "I already know the answer."
- Reality: Research exists when evidence or tradeoffs matter; record the evidence so future agents do not rediscover it.
- Rationalization: "Rejected options are not worth writing down."
- Reality: Rejections prevent future churn when another agent is tempted by the same path.
- Rationalization: "Generated support analysis is authoritative."
- Reality: Generated output is source material. Research owns synthesis and limits, not imported authority.
- Rationalization: "Open questions mean the research failed."
- Reality: Honest open questions are useful when they are routed or deferred explicitly.
Red Flags
- conclusions are stronger than the cited evidence
- sources lack provenance or freshness notes when current facts matter
- alternatives are listed but not actually compared
- null results are missing after failed attempts
- recommendations do not name the downstream owner layer
Verification
Done Means
- another agent could reuse the note without rerunning the whole investigation
- uncertainty is visible
- recommendations are bounded by actual evidence
Read In This Order
Read immediately for normal research creation or review:
references/research-shape.md when structuring investigation, rejected
options, null results, conclusions, or recommendations.references/source-handling.md when external sources, current facts, or
source quality matter.templates/research.md only when creating or substantially reshaping a
research record.
