| name | scout |
| description | Quick preliminary research on a supplement or question. Searches for promising evidence that might warrant full deep research. Outputs a structured scouting brief to wiki/scouting/ — kept separate from the main wiki until promoted through deep research and ingest. Use when: "is X worth researching deeper?", "what's the preliminary evidence for X?", "$scout taurine cognitive", "should I research quercetin?". Do NOT use for comprehensive research (use foundry-research deep-research instead) or for wiki ingestion (use wiki-ingest). |
scout
You are conducting a quick preliminary investigation of a supplement or health question. The goal is to determine whether something is promising enough to warrant a full deep-research session, not to produce definitive answers.
Output Silo
All scouting output goes to wiki/scouting/ — it is not part of the main wiki. This keeps preliminary findings separate from ingested, vetted knowledge.
When to Use
- "Is X worth researching deeper?"
- "What's the preliminary evidence for X?"
- "$scout " or "$scout "
- "Should I research quercetin?"
- Quick gap-filling: "what does the literature say about X interaction?"
When NOT to Use
- Full supplement investigation → use
foundry-research deep-research
- Ingesting into the wiki → use
wiki-ingest
- Answering from existing wiki knowledge → search the wiki first
Steps
1. Read context
- Read
wiki/handoff.md
- Read
purpose.md
- Check if the supplement/topic already exists in the wiki (search
wiki/entities/ and wiki/scouting/)
- If a scouting brief already exists, offer to update it rather than create a duplicate
2. Understand the scope
Parse the user's request into:
- Subject: supplement name or topic
- Angle: specific outcome, pathway, or question (if specified; otherwise "general promise")
- Context: why they're asking (e.g., considering adding to stack, saw a claim, gap from previous research)
If the scope is unclear, ask one focused question — do not present a menu.
3. Search (5-10 min equivalent)
Execute a targeted search following the methodology in wiki/docs/research-methodology.md:
Academic-first search:
- Search PubMed/Google Scholar for recent reviews (2024+) on the subject
- Search for the highest-evidence studies (meta-analyses > RCTs > observational)
- Note study types and sample sizes
Supplementary search:
- Check Examine.com for a summary if available
- Check regulatory status (FDA, EMA) if relevant
- Quick safety check — known adverse effects, drug interactions
Minimum source targets:
- 1-2 systematic reviews or meta-analyses (if they exist)
- 2-3 primary studies (RCTs preferred)
- 1 safety/interaction source
If fewer than 5 sources are findable, note the scarcity — that itself is a finding.
4. Assess promise
Rate the preliminary evidence:
| Rating | Meaning | Next step |
|---|
| High promise | Multiple RCTs with positive outcomes, clear mechanism, good safety | Recommend deep research + eventual ingest |
| Moderate promise | Some human evidence, plausible mechanism, limited but positive data | Recommend deep research to clarify |
| Low promise | Mostly animal/in-vitro, weak human data, or mixed results | Flag as low priority; deep research only if specifically interested |
| Dead end | Negative RCTs, safety concerns, or no credible human evidence | Do not recommend further research |
| Insufficient data | Too few sources to assess | Recommend deep research if the question matters, otherwise deprioritize |
5. Write the scouting brief
Create a file in wiki/scouting/ using this structure:
---
type: entity
entity_type: supplement
aliases: []
sources: []
created: "YYYY-MM-DD"
updated: "YYYY-MM-DD"
status: preliminary
tags:
- supplement/<name>
- scouting
---
> [!tldr]
> One-sentence verdict on promise level.
## Promise Rating
**[High / Moderate / Low / Dead end / Insufficient data]**
## Why Investigated
<!-- Brief context on why this was scouted -->
## What We Found
### Evidence Snapshot
| Evidence Level | Count | Key Finding |
|----------------|-------|-------------|
| Meta-analysis/systematic review | | |
| Clinical endpoint RCT | | |
| Biomarker RCT | | |
| Observational | | |
| Animal/in-vitro | | |
### Top 3 Sources
1. **Source 1** — Key finding. [Tier] (full text / abstract only)
2. **Source 2** — Key finding. [Tier] (full text / abstract only)
3. **Source 3** — Key finding. [Tier] (full text / abstract only)
### Mechanism Summary
<!-- 2-3 sentences on known or proposed mechanism -->
### Safety Signal
<!-- Any red flags? Green flags? Unknown? -->
## What's Missing
> [!gap]
> - [ ] What questions remain unanswered
> - [ ] What evidence level is needed to confirm promise
## Recommendation
<!-- Clear recommendation: deep research? deprioritize? specific angle to investigate? -->
## Search Methodology
- Databases searched: [e.g., Google Scholar, PubMed]
- Sources screened: [number]
- Sources read: [number full text, number abstract only]
- Date of search: YYYY-MM-DD
- Limitations: [any gaps in the search]
6. Present to user
Show the user:
- Promise rating with brief justification
- Top finding (one sentence)
- Recommendation (deep research? deprioritize?)
- Path to the scouting brief file
7. Update handoff
Append a note to wiki/handoff.md about the scouting session. Log in wiki/log.md.
Promoting to Deep Research
If the scouting brief rates "High promise" or "Moderate promise" and the user wants to proceed:
- Use the scouting brief as input to frame the deep-research query
- The deep-research report supersedes the scouting brief
- After deep research completes, the scouting brief gets a
superseded-by frontmatter field pointing to the research report
- The wiki-ingest skill then ingests from the research report as normal
Scouting Brief Lifecycle
wiki/scouting/<Supplement>.md
→ rated High/Moderate → deep research → wiki-ingest → scouting brief marked superseded
→ rated Low → kept in scouting/ as reference, not promoted
→ rated Dead end → kept in scouting/ with clear "dead end" status
Scouting briefs are never directly ingested into the main wiki. They inform deep research queries.