| name | research-quality-review |
| description | Audit source quality, scoring performance, duplicate patterns, source failures, stale config, and tuning opportunities. |
Research Quality Review
Run weekly, after a few research cycles, or whenever the briefs feel noisy.
Inputs
research/output/
research/topic-briefings/
research/sources.json
research/scoring-rubric.json
research/db/signals.db if available
- recent user feedback
Review Checklist
- Source failures:
- repeated timeouts
- rate limits
- empty sources
- auth failures
- Source quality:
- high-volume low-signal sources
- sources that never produce selected items
- missing source categories
- Scoring quality:
- obvious good signals below threshold
- noisy signals above threshold
- over-weighted platform bonuses
- stale or too-broad keywords
- Deduplication:
- repeated same story across platforms
- old items resurfacing without new evidence
- Delivery quality:
- too much detail in summaries
- weak source attribution
- unclear recommended actions
- Topic briefing quality:
- options too similar
- low evidence topics
- weak why-now framing
Output
Write:
research/output/YYYY-MM-DD/research-quality-review.md
Use this format:
# Research Quality Review -- YYYY-MM-DD
## Summary
[What is working / not working.]
## Source Changes Recommended
- Keep:
- Add:
- Remove:
- Watch:
## Scoring Changes Recommended
- [Specific rubric edit and why]
## Workflow Changes Recommended
- [Cron, delivery, topic briefing, output format changes]
## Human Decisions Needed
- [Decision and tradeoff]
Do not edit source/scoring config automatically unless the user asks. Propose changes first.