| name | multi-source-research |
| description | Conduct deep, multi-source research by cross-referencing data from web search, news, social media, academic sources, and proprietary databases. Enforces APA 7th citations, evidence hierarchy, and 2-cycle verification per research theme. Built for competitive intelligence analyst workflows.
|
| version | 1.0.0 |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"requires":{"bins":"[Truncated]"}}} |
| allowed-tools | web_search web_fetch Bash |
Multi-Source Research
Comprehensive multi-source investigation engine. Use when the task needs exhaustive research across ≥3 independent source categories, triangulated for accuracy.
Workflow
Phase 1: Research Plan
- Define thesis — What question are we answering? What decisions ride on it?
- Source mapping — Identify which source types are relevant:
| Source Category | Tools | Use Case |
|---|
| Web (general) | web_search/Brave | Company info, news, pricing |
| Academic | web_search (arXiv, Semantic Scholar, CrossRef) | Papers, benchmarks |
| Social media | web_search (Reddit, X, LinkedIn) | Sentiment, chatter, user feedback |
| Official | web_fetch (gov.cn, CAC, company sites) | Policy, official announcements |
| Code/OSS | web_search + web_fetch (GitHub) | Open source, repos, community |
- Cross-reference matrix — For each claim, plan ≥2 independent sources.
Phase 2: First Pass — Surface Collection
Run parallel searches across target categories.
For each source type, collect:
- Title, URL, publication date
- Author/organization (source credibility assessment)
- Key claims (verbatim quotes where possible)
Phase 3: Second Pass — Deep Verification
For each claim marked as critical:
- Find a second independent source
- Compare dates — is one version more recent?
- Rate consistency: ✅ Match | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ Contradiction
- If contradiction exists, flag and investigate further
Phase 4: Synthesis
## Research Summary
### Key Findings
| Finding | Confidence | Sources | Verdict |
|---------|-----------|---------|---------|
| ... | 90% | [A] + [B] | CORROBORATED |
| ... | 60% | [C] only | NEEDS VERIFICATION |
### Source Credibility Ratings
| Source | URL | Credibility | Rationale |
|--------|-----|-------------|-----------|
| CAC.gov.cn | ... | A (98%) | Official government |
| TechCrunch | ... | A (93%) | Established tech media |
| Zhihu | ... | C (65%) | User-generated, needs verification |
### Notable Gaps
- What we couldn't find
- What remains uncertain
- Recommended next research direction
Cross-Validation Rules
- Critical claims (P0/P1 relevance): must have ≥2 A-level or ≥3 B-level sources
- Single-source claims: labeled as "unverified" with source credibility stated
- Conflicting claims: surfaced explicitly with the analyst's judgment
- Dated information: always check recency; label historical data
Output Format
### [Topic]
#### Verdict
[1-2 sentence judgment with confidence level]
#### Evidence
- [Source A]: [claim] (credibility: A, date)
- [Source B]: [corroborating/contradicting claim] (credibility: B, date)
#### Analyst Note
[What the data doesn't tell us, what to watch for]
