| name | source-backed-research-brief |
| description | Research a defined question and produce a concise, decision-ready brief with traceable current sources, explicit uncertainty, conflicting-evidence handling, and separated facts and inference. Use for market, product, policy, vendor, technical, or other web-backed research; not for literature reviews requiring formal systematic-review methodology. |
Source-backed Research Brief
Turn the user's actual question into a brief that another person can verify and act on. Preserve the requested geography, time horizon, audience, comparison set, and decision criteria. If one important ambiguity remains, state the interpretation you used rather than silently changing the question.
Research
Prefer primary and authoritative sources for claims about products, prices, laws, standards, research findings, company facts, and technical behavior. Use independent sources when they materially test, contextualize, or contradict a primary claim. Search for the claim itself, not only for pages that agree with an expected answer.
For every consequential claim, capture the source title, publisher, publication or update date when available, access date, and direct URL. Open the supporting page and verify that it actually says what the brief attributes to it. Do not cite search snippets as evidence.
Treat changing facts as current only after checking them during this task. Examples include prices, leadership, laws, product capabilities, compatibility, availability, and security advisories. Label undated or stale sources instead of presenting them as current.
For high-impact or contested claims, seek corroboration from a genuinely independent source. Two pages repeating one press release are one evidence chain, not two confirmations.
Read evidence-standards.md when the task involves conflicting sources, material calculations, high-stakes decisions, or more than a few substantive claims.
Analyze
Keep these categories distinct:
- Sourced fact: directly supported by a cited source.
- Calculation: derived from stated inputs; show the formula and units.
- Inference: the analyst's interpretation of facts; label it as inference.
- Unknown: evidence is missing, inaccessible, ambiguous, or too stale.
When sources conflict, identify the exact disagreement, compare their dates, definitions, scope, and incentives, and explain which claim is stronger and why. Do not average incompatible figures or hide disagreement behind vague language.
Do not turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence. Record searches that failed only when the gap affects the conclusion.
Deliver
Lead with the answer and its confidence. Use the shortest structure that preserves the reasoning, normally:
- answer or recommendation;
- decisive evidence;
- tradeoffs or alternatives;
- uncertainties and what would change the conclusion;
- source list or evidence table.
Place citations next to the claims they support. Include dates and units where they matter. Quote sparingly and paraphrase accurately. If the user requested a specific format, keep that format and incorporate evidence fields without replacing their deliverable.
Before finishing, verify that each major conclusion has support, links resolve to the cited material, time-sensitive claims have current evidence, calculations reproduce, and inferences are visibly labeled.
This Skill authorizes research and analysis only. Do not contact sources, submit forms, publish findings, purchase products, change accounts, or make other external mutations unless the user separately requests that action.
