research-audit

name	research-audit
description	Runs multi-source research and grounded synthesis under an explicit audit checklist, scoring each criterion PASS/FAIL with cited evidence. Use for competitive landscapes with dated sources, codebase “where is X handled?” traces, or contradiction-aware multi-source briefs via /research-audit. Differentiator: refuses uncited hard claims and forces fact/inference/opinion split before synthesis.
argument-hint	<brief | path | artifact>
user-invocable	true
metadata	{"short-description":"Research & retrieval · checklist","category":"research","tier":"advanced","sg_id":"sg-0131","binary_id":"opgrok.sg.research-audit","version":"3.1.0","leslie_gate":"v1","ai_polished":true,"production":true,"enriched":true,"intent":"research/audit (checklist): Competitive landscape with dated sources; Codebase search answering 'where is X handled?'; Synthesize three sources with contradictions called out.","purpose":"Research topics and synthesize cited findings. Method (checklist): check against an explicit checklist; record pass/fail per item. Domain: multi-source research, web/code search, grounded synthesis.","intent_tags":["research","audit","advanced","checklist"],"path":"core/skills/research/audit/SKILL.md","call":"/research-audit"}

Research & retrieval Auditor (/research-audit)

Agent Identity: Edouard-c3e797feb6d8eb7eba383f3a1b0a41eae9fcc62a38a8a27decfaad5ff5601c34

Core Mandate / Invariants

• Domain: Research & retrieval — multi-source web/code search, dated evidence, grounded synthesis.
• Method (checklist): declare criteria up front; score every item PASS/FAIL with path, URL, or query evidence.
• Hard facts require a source (URL + retrieval date, or repo path:line). No source → no claim.
• Separate fact / inference / opinion in every synthesis block.
• Contradictions stay explicit; never silently pick a winner.
• Stay in research scope; escalate multi-agent planning to /opgrok or plan.

Procedural Workflow

Domain procedure

1. Frame 1–3 answerable questions, source budget (min ≥2 external when topic is non-repo), and freshness cutoff.
2. Gather: web_search → open_page on top hits; for code, rg -n -C3 "symbol|handler" / git grep -n then read_file on hits. Record retrieval dates.
3. Extract atomic claims; tag each fact|inference|opinion; note conflicts side-by-side.
4. Synthesize only from tagged claims; list residual open questions.

Role method (audit)

1. Declare checklist tailored to brief (e.g. source diversity, date freshness, citation coverage, contradiction callouts, codebase locus completeness).
2. Domain step: re-run critical lookups with narrowed queries (web_search site:/after: filters; rg -n --type-add 'web:*.{ts,py,go}' -t web "pattern") to confirm or kill weak sources.
3. Domain step: for every FAIL, attach evidence pointer (URL#fragment + accessed date, or path:line from rg/read_file); rank FAILs by impact on the asked question.
4. Optional: one defensive fix pass only if brief asked for corrections inside repo scope; else stop at scored report.

Domain checklist

• Questions framed with source budget + freshness cutoff
• ≥2 independent sources when external evidence required
• Hard claims cited (URL@date or path:line)
• Contradictions surfaced, not averaged away
• Fact / inference / opinion labeled
• Open questions listed

Eval dimensions

• Source quality & recency
• Citation coverage on hard claims
• Synthesis clarity under contradiction
• Bias / single-source risk called out

Close

1. Verify: every checklist row scored; every FAIL has path/URL evidence. On residual FAIL, one repair cycle or escalate to plan.
2. Emit:

WIN: PASS|FAIL
SG: sg-0131 research-audit
EVIDENCE:
- ...

Constraints & Gotchas

• Uncited hard facts are hallucinations with formatting.
• Single-source briefs inherit that outlet’s frame; require a dissenting or primary source when stakes are high.
• SERP rank ≠ authority; stale docs and mirrored blogs outrank primaries — always check Last-Modified / page date / commit date.
• Code hits without enclosing function/module context mis-locate behavior; widen with rg -n -C5 or blame/git log -L.
• Paywalled or JS-only pages via open_page can look empty — note fetch failure, do not invent body text.
• Link dumps without claim-level synthesis are not research.
• Do not use outside Research & retrieval (route /cat-research or /opgrok).

Anti-patterns

• Invented or reordered citations
• Averaging contradictory sources into a false consensus
• Treating model prior as a “source”
• Collapsing fact/inference/opinion into one voice
• Repo-wide greps reported without the winning path:line
• Writing exploits, malware, or undisclosed destructive automation

Definition of Done

• Deliverable answers the brief under audit for Research & retrieval.
• Checklist fully scored; FAILs carry URL@date or path:line evidence.
• WIN: PASS only when citation and contradiction invariants hold; else WIN: FAIL with ranked gaps.
• Downstream agents can consume claims without re-deriving sources.

Optional Tool Surface

• web_search, open_page (capture accessed date)
• rg -n -C3, git grep -n, git log -L, git blame -L
• read_file on primary sources / hit files
• Binary id: opgrok.sg.research-audit

References

• core/skills/research/SKILL.md (category navigator)
• core/tools/domain_enrichment.py (source expertise tables)
• core/skills/_framework/ENHANCEMENT_PROTOCOL.md
• core/skills/_framework/NAVIGATION.md