ingredient-research

name	ingredient-research
description	Deep research prompt for supplement/product ingredient evidence — gathers studies, claims, citations, and DR-relevant proof points for the R in RMBC
model	sonnet
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	WebSearch, WebFetch

ingredient-research

Purpose

Systematic ingredient-level research tool for the "R" in RMBC. Gathers clinical studies, dosage data, bioavailability metrics, mechanism of action details, and DR-ready proof points per ingredient. Specificity beats persuasion — "94% improvement in a 30-day double-blind trial (n=120)" converts better than "clinically proven." Output feeds directly into mechanism ideation and copy writing.

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
product_name	Yes	Product or brand name
ingredients	Yes	List of ingredients to research (comma-separated or bulleted)
claims	No	Specific marketing claims to validate or find evidence for
product_category	No	supplement (default), skincare, food, other

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for RMBC methodology overview. This skill implements Pillar 4 of the Research phase: Ingredient Research.

Step 2 — Per-Ingredient Research Loop

For each ingredient in the list, systematically gather:

1. Identity & Basics

   • Full compound name, common aliases, standardized form (if applicable)
   • Typical dosage range (clinical vs commercial)
   • Bioavailability considerations (absorption rate, delivery method impact)

2. Clinical Evidence

   • Search for: randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, peer-reviewed studies
   • Capture: author(s), year, journal, sample size, duration, key finding
   • Prioritize: human trials over animal/in-vitro, larger sample sizes, recent studies
   • Note patent numbers and clinical trial IDs (NCT numbers) when found

3. Mechanism of Action

   • How the ingredient works at a biological/chemical level
   • Pathway or system it targets (e.g., "inhibits 5-alpha reductase," "upregulates AMPK")
   • Why this mechanism matters to the end consumer (plain-language translation)

4. DR-Ready Proof Points

   • Extract specific, citable statistics and outcomes
   • Translate findings into compliant claim language
   • Flag any FTC/FDA compliance considerations for the claim type

5. Differentiators

   • Patented or branded forms (e.g., "Bioperine" vs generic black pepper extract)
   • Sourcing or quality markers (organic, wild-harvested, GMP-certified)
   • What makes this ingredient or its form unique vs commodity versions

Step 3 — Cross-Ingredient Analysis

After individual research, identify:

• Synergistic combinations (ingredients that amplify each other)
• Potential contraindications or redundancies
• Strongest proof cluster (which ingredients carry the most citable evidence)
• Gaps where evidence is thin (flag for mechanism ideation to work around)

Step 4 — Compile Output

Assemble per-ingredient briefs and cross-ingredient analysis into the output format below.

Output Format

Per-Ingredient Research Brief

## [Ingredient Name]

**Common dosage range:** [range] | **Form in product:** [if known]

### Key Studies
1. [Author et al., Year] — [Journal/Source]
   Finding: [specific result]
   Sample: n=[size] | Duration: [length] | Type: [RCT/meta-analysis/observational]

2. [repeat for each relevant study, max 5]

### Mechanism of Action
[2-3 sentences: what it does, how, and why that matters]

### DR-Ready Claim Statements
- "[Specific claim with number]" — Source: [citation]
- "[Specific claim with number]" — Source: [citation]
  (Proof strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak)

### Differentiators
- [Patented form, sourcing, or unique quality marker]

### Compliance Notes
- [Any FTC/FDA flags for this ingredient's claims]

Cross-Ingredient Summary

## Cross-Ingredient Analysis

**Synergies:** [which ingredients amplify each other and why]
**Strongest proof cluster:** [top 2-3 ingredients by evidence quality]
**Evidence gaps:** [ingredients with thin or only anecdotal support]
**Recommended mechanism angles:** [preliminary angles for mechanism-ideation]

Proof Strength Rating

Rating	Criteria	Example
Strong	RCT, meta-analysis, or large-scale human trial (n>50) in peer-reviewed journal	"73% reduction in joint pain (n=120, 12-week RCT, Journal of Nutrition)"
Moderate	Observational study, small human trial (n<50), or well-designed animal study	"Participants reported 40% improvement (n=30, open-label pilot)"
Weak	In-vitro only, anecdotal, or single non-replicated study	"Showed antioxidant activity in cell culture (University of X, 2019)"

Quality Criteria

• Every claim statement includes a specific citation (author, year, or source)
• No unsourced statistics — if a number appears, its origin is traceable
• Mechanism of action is explained in both technical and plain-language terms
• Compliance flags are present for any claim that could trigger FTC/FDA scrutiny
• At least 2 studies per ingredient (or explicit note that evidence is limited)
• Proof strength rating assigned to every DR-ready claim statement

Related Skills

• Output feeds into /mechanism-ideation for novel angle development from proof points
• Output feeds into /unified-research-synthesizer for full brief compilation across all 4 research pillars
• Copy using this research should be validated with /rmbc-copy-audit

Non-Supplement Adaptation

For product_category values other than supplement:

Category	"Ingredient" Equivalent	Research Focus
skincare	Active compounds (retinol, niacinamide, peptides)	Dermatological studies, concentration data, skin penetration
food	Nutritional components, sourcing, processing methods	USDA data, bioavailability, comparative nutrition studies
other	Material specs, components, manufacturing processes	Patents, engineering data, durability/performance testing

The output format remains identical — substitute "ingredient" with the relevant component type.

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join