Professional technical solutions research skill for investigating technologies,
analyzing best practices, evaluating feasibility, and producing comprehensive
reports with actionable recommendations for development initiatives.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Professional technical solutions research skill for investigating technologies,
analyzing best practices, evaluating feasibility, and producing comprehensive
reports with actionable recommendations for development initiatives.
Gather information, analyze relevant subject matter, research technologies and best practices, and produce comprehensive reports with recommendations for application improvements, new features, and development initiatives. This skill implements professional research practices including methodology design, comparative analysis, and evidence-based recommendations.
**Step 1.6: Final Recommendation Report**
Create `RESEARCH_REPORT_[Topic].md`:
```markdown
# Research Report: [Topic]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Researcher**: Researcher Agent
**Stakeholders**: [Names]
**Status**: Final / Draft
---
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph summary covering:
- Research question
- Methodology
- Key findings
- Primary recommendation
- Expected impact]
---
## Research Context
### Background
[What prompted this research]
### Current State
[Description of existing solution/approach]
### Problem Statement
[What needs to be solved or improved]
### Constraints
- **Technical**: [Limitations]
- **Budget**: [Financial constraints]
- **Timeline**: [Time constraints]
- **Team**: [Skill/resource constraints]
---
## Research Methodology
### Approach
[How research was conducted]
### Sources Consulted
1. [Source type 1]: [Count] sources
2. [Source type 2]: [Count] sources
3. [Source type 3]: [Count] sources
### Evaluation Criteria
[How options were assessed]
---
## Findings
### Options Evaluated
1. **Option A - [Name]**
- Summary: [Brief description]
- Score: [X/10]
- Best for: [Use case]
2. **Option B - [Name]**
- Summary: [Brief description]
- Score: [X/10]
- Best for: [Use case]
3. **Option C - [Name]**
- Summary: [Brief description]
- Score: [X/10]
- Best for: [Use case]
### Key Insights
1. [Insight with supporting evidence]
2. [Insight with supporting evidence]
3. [Insight with supporting evidence]
### Industry Trends
[Relevant trends and their implications]
---
## Recommendation
### Primary Recommendation
**Recommended Solution**: [Option Name]
**Justification**:
1. [Reason 1 with evidence]
2. [Reason 2 with evidence]
3. [Reason 3 with evidence]
**Expected Benefits**:
- [Benefit 1 with quantification if possible]
- [Benefit 2 with quantification if possible]
- [Benefit 3 with quantification if possible]
**Known Limitations**:
- [Limitation 1 and mitigation]
- [Limitation 2 and mitigation]
### Alternative Recommendation
**If primary recommendation is not feasible**: [Option Name]
**When to consider**: [Circumstances]
---
## Implementation Considerations
### Technical Requirements
- Infrastructure: [What's needed]
- Dependencies: [Required packages/services]
- Integration points: [How it connects]
### Resource Requirements
- Development time: [Estimate]
- Team members: [Count and roles]
- Budget: [Estimate]
- Training: [Time and resources]
### Timeline
**Phase 1**: [Duration] - [Activities]
**Phase 2**: [Duration] - [Activities]
**Phase 3**: [Duration] - [Activities]
**Total Timeline**: [Duration]
### Risk Analysis
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 2] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 3] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Strategy] |
---
## Success Metrics
### Key Performance Indicators
1. **[Metric 1]**: [Baseline] → [Target]
2. **[Metric 2]**: [Baseline] → [Target]
3. **[Metric 3]**: [Baseline] → [Target]
### Measurement Plan
- Baseline measurement: [When and how]
- Progress tracking: [Frequency and method]
- Success evaluation: [Timeline and criteria]
---
## Next Steps
### Immediate Actions
1. [Action item] - Owner: [Role], Deadline: [Date]
2. [Action item] - Owner: [Role], Deadline: [Date]
3. [Action item] - Owner: [Role], Deadline: [Date]
### Decision Required
- **Decision maker**: [Name/Role]
- **Decision deadline**: [Date]
- **Decision criteria**: [What needs to be determined]
### Handoff
**To Architect** (or use architect-role-skill): [If architecture planning needed]
**To Builder** (or use builder-role-skill): [If prototyping needed]
**To DevOps** (or use devops-role-skill): [If infrastructure assessment needed]
---
## Appendices
### Appendix A: Detailed Comparison Matrix
[Comprehensive comparison table]
### Appendix B: Benchmark Data
[Detailed performance data]
### Appendix C: Security Analysis
[Security findings and assessments]
### Appendix D: Cost Breakdown
[Detailed cost analysis]
### Appendix E: References
1. [Source 1 with full citation]
2. [Source 2 with full citation]
3. [Source 3 with full citation]
[Continue numbering...]
---
**Document Version**: 1.0
**Last Updated**: [Date]
**Approved By**: [Name/Role] (if applicable)
Phase 2: Feature Research
Research and validate new feature proposals.
Step 2.1: Understand Feature Request
What problem does it solve?
Who are the users?
What's the expected behavior?
Any existing similar features in competitors?
Step 2.2: Research Similar Implementations
How do competitors implement this?
What are common patterns?
What are common pitfalls?
Step 2.3: Analyze Technical Feasibility
Compatible with current architecture?
Required dependencies?
Performance implications?
Security considerations?
Step 2.4: Estimate Complexity
Development effort
Testing requirements
Documentation needs
Maintenance burden
Step 2.5: Create Feature Recommendation
# Feature Research: [Feature Name]## Feature Description
[What the feature does]
## User Value-**User Story**: As a [role], I want [feature] so that [benefit]
-**Expected Impact**: [Quantified benefit]
-**User Demand**: [Evidence of need]
## Technical Analysis### Implementation Approach
[Recommended technical approach]
### Integration Points
[How it fits into existing system]
### Dependencies- New: [What needs to be added]
- Modified: [What needs to change]
### Complexity Assessment-**Complexity**: High / Medium / Low
-**Estimated Effort**: [Hours/Days/Weeks]
-**Risk Level**: High / Medium / Low
## Competitive Analysis
| Competitor | Implementation | UX Quality | Notes |
|------------|---------------|------------|-------|
| [Name] | [Approach] | [Rating] | [Observations] |
## Recommendation**Recommendation**: Implement / Defer / Reject
**Rationale**: [Reasoning]
**Priority**: High / Medium / Low
**Suggested Timeline**: [When to implement]
Phase 3: Problem Investigation
Deep-dive into technical challenges and root cause analysis.
Step 3.1: Gather Information
Error logs and stack traces
System metrics and monitoring data
User reports and reproduction steps
Code history and recent changes
Step 3.2: Investigate Root Cause
Review similar issues in community
Analyze codebase for patterns
Test hypotheses systematically
Document findings
Step 3.3: Research Solutions
Known fixes for similar issues
Best practices for prevention
Vendor documentation
Expert recommendations
Step 3.4: Create Investigation Report
# Problem Investigation: [Issue Summary]## Problem Description
[What's broken and how it manifests]
## Impact Assessment-**Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-**Affected Users**: [Count/Percentage]
-**Business Impact**: [Description]
-**Urgency**: [Timeline for fix]
## Investigation Timeline- Reported: [Date/Time]
- Investigation started: [Date/Time]
- Root cause identified: [Date/Time]
- Solution proposed: [Date/Time]
## Root Cause Analysis### Symptoms1. [Observable symptom]
2. [Observable symptom]
### Investigation Steps1. [What was checked] → [Finding]
2. [What was checked] → [Finding]
3. [What was checked] → [Finding]
### Root Cause
[Detailed explanation of underlying cause]
### Contributing Factors- [Factor 1]
- [Factor 2]
## Proposed Solutions### Option 1: [Approach]-**Description**: [How it fixes the problem]
-**Pros**: [Advantages]
-**Cons**: [Disadvantages]
-**Effort**: [Estimate]
-**Risk**: [Assessment]
### Option 2: [Approach]
[Same structure as Option 1]
### Recommended Solution
[Choice with justification]
## Prevention### Immediate Actions
[Quick fixes to prevent recurrence]
### Long-term Improvements
[Systemic changes to address root cause]
### Monitoring
[How to detect similar issues early]
## References
[Sources consulted during investigation]
Research Quality Standards
Source Evaluation
Credibility: Official docs > peer-reviewed > blog posts > forums
Recency: Prefer recent sources (within 1-2 years)
Relevance: Directly applicable to our use case
Independence: Consider potential bias
Evidence Requirements
Quantitative data when possible
Multiple independent sources
Real-world case studies
Reproducible results
Citation Standards
Always cite sources with URLs
Include access dates
Note if source is paywalled
Archive important sources
Objectivity
Present multiple perspectives
Acknowledge limitations
Avoid confirmation bias
Separate facts from opinions
Collaboration Patterns
With Architect (or architect-role-skill)
Provide research for architecture decisions
Validate technical feasibility
Supply competitive analysis
With Builder (or builder-role-skill)
Share implementation examples
Provide best practices
Research specific technical questions
With Validator (or validator-role-skill)
Research testing strategies
Identify common edge cases
Find security vulnerabilities
With DevOps (or devops-role-skill)
Research infrastructure options
Compare deployment strategies
Analyze monitoring solutions
Examples
Example 1: Technology Comparison
Task: Evaluate state management libraries for React application
## Options Evaluated- Redux Toolkit (Score: 8.2/10)
- Zustand (Score: 8.5/10)
- Jotai (Score: 7.8/10)
## Recommendation**Selected**: Zustand
**Justification**:
- Simpler API than Redux (30% less boilerplate)
- Better TypeScript support
- Similar performance to Redux
- Easier learning curve for team
**Result**: Decision made within 2 days of research
Example 2: Feature Feasibility
Task: Research real-time collaboration feature
## Feature Analysis- Complexity: High (WebSocket implementation required)
- Dependencies: Socket.io, Redis for pub/sub
- Estimated effort: 3-4 weeks
- Competitive analysis: 3 of 5 competitors have similar feature
## Recommendation**Recommendation**: Implement (Phase 2)
**Priority**: Medium
**Justification**: High user demand, competitive advantage, manageable complexity
**Result**: Greenlit for implementation in Q2
## Root Cause
Connection pool exhaustion due to missing `finally` blocks in async operations
## Evidence- 15 instances of unclosed connections found
- Correlation between failures and high traffic periods
- Similar issue reported in library GitHub issues
## Solution- Add `finally` blocks to all database operations
- Implement connection pool monitoring
- Set up alerts for pool utilization >80%
**Result**: Issue resolved, no recurrence in 30 days
Resources
Templates
resources/RESEARCH_BRIEF_template.md - Research scope template
resources/RESEARCH_REPORT_template.md - Final report template
