deep-research

name	Deep Research
description	Structured research workflow for answering complex questions, evaluating technologies, and cross-checking information across multiple sources. Turns curiosity into verified, actionable intelligence.
version	1.0.0
triggers	["user asks a complex or unfamiliar question","agent needs to evaluate technology alternatives","research is required before making architectural decisions","user wants information cross-checked across sources"]

🔬 Deep Research — From Question to Verified Answer

"A question without research is an opinion. Research without cross-checking is propaganda."

This skill transforms questions, ideas, and uncertainties into verified, evidence-tagged intelligence through a structured research pipeline.

---

Research Pipeline

flowchart TD
    INPUT["Question / Idea /\nUncertainty"] --> P1["① FRAME\nDefine scope & criteria"]
    P1 --> P2["② DIVERGE\nCast wide net"]
    P2 --> P3["③ CROSS-CHECK\nVerify across sources"]
    P3 --> P4["④ EVALUATE\nScore & rank findings"]
    P4 --> P5["⑤ SYNTHESIZE\nRecap & recommend"]
    P5 --> OUTPUT["Verified answer\nwith evidence chain"]
    
    P3 -->|"Contradiction\nfound"| P2

---

Phase ①: FRAME — Define the Research Scope

Before searching anything, define what you're looking for and how you'll judge it.

Scope Template

**Question:** {The precise question to answer}
**Type:** comparison | evaluation | exploration | fact-check
**Criteria:** {What makes an answer good?}
**Constraints:** {Time, language, recency, domain}
**Anti-Goals:** {What we're NOT trying to learn}

Evaluation Criteria (pick relevant ones)

Criterion	Description	Weight
Recency	When was this published/updated?	🔴 High
Authority	Who published it? (official docs > blog > forum)	🔴 High
Relevance	Does it answer the actual question?	🔴 High
Adoption	How widely used/starred/downloaded?	🟡 Medium
Consensus	Do multiple independent sources agree?	🟡 Medium
Depth	Surface overview vs deep technical detail?	🟢 Low

Do Not Do

• Start searching before defining what you're looking for
• Search with vague queries ("best framework 2024")
• Set no criteria — you'll drown in results without a filter

---

Phase ②: DIVERGE — Cast a Wide Net

Search broadly across multiple source categories:

Source Categories

Category	Sources	Trust Level
Official	Docs, specs, RFCs, GitHub repos	🟢 High
Academic	Papers, conferences, research labs	🟢 High
Industry	Tech blogs (major cos), benchmark reports	🟡 Medium
Community	Stack Overflow, Reddit, HN, Discord	🟠 Low-Med
Individual	Personal blogs, tutorials, tweets	🔴 Low

Search Strategy

flowchart TD
    QUERY["Research question"] --> S1["Search 1:\nOfficial docs"]
    QUERY --> S2["Search 2:\nGitHub repos\n(stars, activity)"]
    QUERY --> S3["Search 3:\nTech blogs\n(recent, authoritative)"]
    QUERY --> S4["Search 4:\nCommunity discussions\n(real-world experience)"]
    
    S1 --> POOL["Source pool\n(≥ 5 sources)"]
    S2 --> POOL
    S3 --> POOL
    S4 --> POOL

For Each Source, Record

Field	Description
URL	The source link
Title	Article/doc title
Author/Org	Who published it
Date	When published/updated
Category	Official/Academic/Industry/Community/Individual
Key Claims	What does this source say? (summarize in ≤ 3 points)

Do Not Do

• Rely on a single source — minimum 5 sources for any research
• Search only one category — always include at least 2 categories
• Ignore publication date — a 2020 article about 2024 tech is dangerously outdated
• Accept the first result — the best answer is rarely the first one

---

Phase ③: CROSS-CHECK — Verify Across Sources

The most critical phase. No claim is accepted until verified by ≥ 2 independent sources.

Cross-Check Matrix

Claim	Source A	Source B	Source C	Verdict
{Claim 1}	✅ Confirms	✅ Confirms	—	Verified
{Claim 2}	✅ Confirms	❌ Contradicts	✅ Confirms	Disputed — investigate
{Claim 3}	✅ Confirms	—	—	Unverified — needs more sources

Contradiction Resolution

flowchart TD
    CONTRA["Sources disagree"] --> Q1{"Which source is\nmore authoritative?"}
    Q1 -->|"Official docs"| OFFICIAL["Trust official\nTag: [CODE]"]
    Q1 -->|"Both equal"| Q2{"Which is\nmore recent?"}
    Q2 -->|"Source A newer"| RECENT["Trust recent\nTag: [INFER]"]
    Q2 -->|"Same date"| Q3{"Can you\ntest it?"}
    Q3 -->|"Yes"| TEST["Run experiment\nTag: [RUNTIME]"]
    Q3 -->|"No"| FLAG["Flag as disputed\nTag: [HYPO]"]

Do Not Do

• Accept a claim from a single source as fact
• Ignore contradictions — they are the most valuable signals
• Trust a blog post over official documentation
• Skip date verification — tech information has a half-life

---

Phase ④: EVALUATE — Score & Rank

Score each finding against the criteria defined in Phase ①.

Scoring Template

Finding	Recency	Authority	Relevance	Adoption	Consensus	Total
{Finding A}	5/5	4/5	5/5	3/5	4/5	21/25
{Finding B}	3/5	5/5	4/5	5/5	5/5	22/25
{Finding C}	2/5	2/5	3/5	1/5	2/5	10/25

Evidence Level Assignment

Score Range	Evidence Level	Meaning
20-25	[RUNTIME] or [CODE]	Strong, verified evidence
15-19	[INFER]	Reasonable confidence, pattern-based
10-14	[HYPO]	Hypothesis, needs more verification
< 10	Drop	Not trustworthy enough to include

Do Not Do

• Include low-score findings without flagging their evidence level
• Let personal preference override scoring data
• Skip scoring because "the answer is obvious"

---

Phase ⑤: SYNTHESIZE — Recap & Recommend

Produce a structured research report.

Output Template

## Research Report: {Question}

### Executive Summary
{2-3 sentences answering the original question}

### Methodology
- Sources consulted: {N}
- Source categories: {list}
- Cross-checks performed: {N}

### Key Findings

| # | Finding | Evidence | Sources |
|:---|:---|:---:|:---|
| 1 | {finding} | [RUNTIME] | {source links} |
| 2 | {finding} | [INFER] | {source links} |

### Contradictions & Disputes
{Any unresolved disagreements between sources}

### Recommendation
{What the agent recommends, with reasoning}

### Confidence Level
{HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — justified by evidence quality}

### Source Registry
| # | Source | Category | Date | Trust |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---:|
| 1 | {URL} | Official | 2024-01 | 🟢 |
| 2 | {URL} | Community | 2023-11 | 🟠 |

Do Not Do

• Present findings without citing sources
• Give a recommendation without explaining the reasoning
• Hide low confidence behind assertive language
• Skip the contradictions section — honesty builds trust
• Present research as exhaustive when time-boxed — state limitations

---

Quick Reference

┌────────────────────────────────────┐
│  🔬 Deep Research Pipeline         │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│  ① FRAME    — Define question      │
│  ② DIVERGE  — ≥5 sources, ≥2 cats │
│  ③ CROSS    — ≥2 sources per claim│
│  ④ EVALUATE — Score & evidence tag │
│  ⑤ SYNTH    — Report + recommend  │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Trust: Docs > Papers > Blogs     │
│  Min sources: 5                   │
│  Cross-check: 2+ per claim        │
│  Evidence: [CODE] [RUNTIME]       │
│            [INFER] [HYPO]         │
└────────────────────────────────────┘