research

name	research
description	Use when the user requests research, investigation, best practices, comparisons, or evidence-backed recommendations.

Research

Overview

Turn an ambiguous question into a decision-ready recommendation backed by explicit evidence.

When to use

• The user asks you to research, investigate, compare options, find best practices, or recommend a solution.
• The task requires reading existing materials (docs/links/code/logs) before deciding.
• The decision should be supported by multiple independent external sources plus any provided internal context.

Inputs (ask for these up front)

• The exact question and the decision to be made.
• Existing materials: docs, links, code pointers, tickets, logs, dashboards, prior writeups.
• Constraints: timebox, budget, security/compliance constraints, target platforms, success criteria.
• Data sensitivity: what must not be shared externally (secrets, proprietary details, customer data).
• What "good" looks like: measurable outcomes and non-goals.

Hard gates (non-negotiable)

1. Read first: do not recommend a solution before reading the provided materials (or explicitly stating none were provided).
2. Confirm the pain: restate the user's pain points/problems in your own words and confirm.
3. Ask when unclear: if anything blocks correctness, ask the user. Prefer 1-3 short questions per turn; prefer multiple-choice when possible.
4. Evidence-backed decisions:
   • Every recommendation must include an evidence map (claim -> evidence -> source).
   • Use websearch to find current best practices / broadly adopted solutions.
   • Default: at least 3 independent external sources.
   • Fallback: 2 sources only if 3 is not feasible, and you must say why (niche topic, paywalled sources, no primary docs, etc.).
   • Define independent as "not the same claim repeated via syndication or mutual citations". Prefer sources from different organizations, and prioritize primary documentation when available.
   • If websearch is unavailable (policy, environment, outage) or disallowed by the user, stop and ask whether to proceed with an internal-only (lower-confidence) answer.
5. Alternatives: present at least 2 viable options with tradeoffs (cost, complexity, risk, time-to-implement, operational burden).
6. No evidence, no claim: if a claim cannot be supported, label it as a hypothesis and say what evidence would confirm/deny it.
7. No leaks: do not include secrets, customer data, or proprietary identifiers in websearch queries or external citations.
8. Architecture-first over minimal edits: You may recommend breaking/destructive changes (rewrites, API changes, migrations) when they materially improve architecture, performance, or outcomes; do not constrain recommendations to minimal diffs. Always state blast radius and include a migration/rollback plan.

Procedure

1. Intake + scope

   • Restate the question and the decision the user wants to make.
   • Define success criteria, constraints, and non-goals.
   • List assumptions; mark which ones need confirmation.

2. Read existing materials

   • Summarize facts, constraints, and what is already known.
   • Extract the user's pain points as a bullet list; ask "did I capture this correctly?"

3. Clarify unknowns

   • List open questions that materially affect the decision.
   • Ask the highest-leverage question(s) first.

4. Set evaluation criteria

   • Define the criteria you will use to judge solutions (examples: security, reliability, latency, DX, maturity/ecosystem, total cost, migration complexity).
   • If criteria conflict, ask the user to prioritize (e.g., reliability > cost > speed).

5. Web research (best practices + option survey)

   • Use websearch and keep a search log (queries + date).
   • Prefer primary sources: official docs, vendor guidance, standards, incident writeups, well-established engineering org posts.
   • Track publication/last-updated dates for key sources; call out when guidance is likely stale.
   • When possible, include at least one primary source (official docs/standards) and at least one non-vendor perspective among the default 3 sources.
   • Triangulate: do not rely on a single source for a key claim.
   • Capture the "why" behind best practices (constraints, failure modes, tradeoffs), not just a list of tools.
   • Use lateral reading for source vetting: investigate who is behind a source by reading what other reputable sources say about it.
   • Keep queries and excerpts non-sensitive; generalize details when searching.
   • If the topic is broad, start with an industry survey/landscape (what exists), then zoom in to 2-4 candidates.

6. Synthesize

   • Present 2-4 options.
   • Use a compact comparison table against the evaluation criteria.
   • Call out uncertainties and what evidence would reduce them.

7. Recommend + justify

   • Make a clear recommendation and specify conditions where you would choose a different option.
   • Provide an evidence map that ties each major claim to evidence and sources.
   • State your confidence level (high/medium/low) and why.

Output template (deliver in-chat unless the user requests a file)

• TL;DR: recommendation in 1-3 bullets.
• Problem statement: what decision is being made and why now.
• Pain points (confirmed): what hurts today.
• What we know (from provided materials): facts only; cite internal artifacts by name/path if available.
• Constraints + success criteria: including non-goals.
• Open questions: and which are answered vs pending.
• Assumptions + limitations: what you assumed, what you could not verify, and why.
• Options considered: 2-4 options, with a comparison table.
• Industry best practices: what's broadly adopted and why (with sources).
• Recommendation: what to do, why, and when not to.
• Evidence map: claim -> evidence -> source.
• Risks + mitigations: including rollout/migration plan at a high level if relevant.
• Next steps: concrete actions and owners.
• Appendix
  • Search log: query strings + date.
  • Sources: list of external sources (title, publisher, date, link; 3+ by default; 2 only with explicit justification).

Evidence quality checklist (use for each key source)

• Stop: what is the claim, exactly?
• Investigate the source: who published it and why?
• Find better coverage: can you corroborate via more authoritative/primary sources?
• Trace claims: can you trace the claim back to original data, standards, or docs?

Evidence tiers (practical heuristic)

Different domains have different norms. Use this as a default ordering, and explain when you deviate:

1. Standards, specifications, and official documentation (including changelogs and migration guides)
2. Peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and high-quality evidence syntheses (when applicable)
3. Incident reports and postmortems from well-established organizations (for operational claims)
4. Independent benchmarks and reproducible experiments (with methodology clearly stated)
5. Reputable books and long-form technical reports
6. Practitioner blog posts, community discussions, and vendor marketing (use carefully; corroborate)

Notes

• If the topic is safety- or compliance-critical, treat web sources as guidance only and ask for domain constraints and required standards.
• If you cannot meet the 3-source default, say so early and propose a path to reach higher confidence (additional materials to request, which primary docs to locate, or a small experiment to run).
• If sources materially disagree, call it out explicitly and explain what you trust and why.

Quick reference

• Minimum bar (default): 3 independent external sources + an evidence map (claim -> evidence -> source).
• Always include: options + tradeoffs + recommendation + confidence + “what would change my mind”.
• Keep a search log: queries + date.

Common mistakes

• Recommending before reading provided materials or before confirming the actual pain points.
• Treating “two blog posts that cite each other” as independent evidence.
• Leaking internal identifiers in web queries (always generalize).

References (for how to evaluate sources / record decisions)

• SIFT resources: https://pressbooks.pub/webliteracy/front-matter/updated-resources-for-2021/
• CRAAP test: https://library.csuchico.edu/help/source-or-information-goodness-craap-test
• Evidence-based management (CEBMa): https://cebma.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-evidence-based-management/
• ADR pattern: https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions
• PRISMA 2020: https://www.prisma-statement.org/
• Thoughtworks Technology Radar: https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/