| name | conducting-deep-research |
| description | Produces comprehensive, well-sourced research reports through iterative refinement using Time-Tested Diffusion methodology. Triggers on "deep research", "thorough analysis", "comprehensive report", "investigate", "due diligence", or when multiple sources are needed to answer complex questions. |
Conducting Deep Research
Iterative methodology treating research as a diffusion process: start with noise (rough draft), apply guidance (research brief), denoise through cycles of critique → research → refine until quality converges.
Workflow
Progress:
- [ ] 1. Clarify scope (if ambiguous)
- [ ] 2. Write research brief (guidance signal)
- [ ] 3. Generate initial draft from knowledge (noisy starting point)
- [ ] 4. Red team critique (identify noise)
- [ ] 5. Targeted web_search with reflection
- [ ] 6. Score sources and track contradictions
- [ ] 7. Refine draft (denoise)
- [ ] 8. Evaluate quality (score < 7? repeat 4-7, max 3 cycles)
- [ ] 9. Finalize
Step 1: Clarify Scope
Ask clarifying questions only if:
- Topic has multiple interpretations
- Key constraints missing (timeframe, geography, industry)
- Success criteria unclear
Skip for well-defined requests.
Step 2: Research Brief (Guidance Signal)
RESEARCH BRIEF
Topic: [Specific question]
Scope: [Included/excluded]
Key Questions:
1. [Primary]
2. [Secondary]
3. [Tertiary]
Constraints: [Limits]
Language: [Match user's language]
Step 3: Initial Draft (Noisy Starting Point)
Write from existing knowledge only. Mark gaps:
[NEEDS VERIFICATION] - uncertain claims[RESEARCH NEEDED] - missing information[CONFIDENCE: LOW/MED/HIGH] - flag uncertainty levels
This draft intentionally contains "noise" - the refinement loop will denoise it.
Step 4: Red Team Critique
Attack your draft for:
- Logic: Circular reasoning, false dichotomies, unsupported claims
- Gaps: Missing perspectives, incomplete coverage
- Sources: Unsourced claims, single-source reliance
Rate each issue 1-10 severity. See references/critique-framework.md.
Step 5: Targeted Research with Reflection
Search budget by complexity:
- Simple verification: 1-2 searches
- Moderate topics: 3-5 searches
- Complex research: 5-10 searches
CRITICAL: Think after EVERY search. After each web_search, pause and reflect:
REFLECTION:
- What key facts did I find?
- What gaps remain?
- Do sources agree or conflict?
- Is another search needed, or do I have enough?
Parallel research triggers - pursue multiple threads when:
- Comparing alternatives (search each separately)
- Multiple independent sub-questions exist
- Different source types needed (academic vs news vs official)
See references/search-patterns.md for query techniques.
Step 6: Source Scoring and Contradiction Handling
Score each source (1-100 confidence):
| Source Type | Base Score |
|---|
| Official documentation, peer-reviewed | 85-100 |
| Government/institutional reports | 75-90 |
| Established news outlets | 60-80 |
| Industry publications | 50-75 |
| Blogs, forums | 20-50 |
Adjust based on: recency, author credentials, citation quality.
Track facts with attribution:
FACT: [Statement]
SOURCE: [URL]
CONFIDENCE: [1-100]
DISPUTED: [Yes/No - conflicts with other sources?]
When sources contradict:
- Note the contradiction explicitly
- Check publication dates (prefer recent)
- Evaluate source authority
- Search for additional sources to break tie
- If unresolved, present both views with confidence levels
See references/source-evaluation.md for detailed guidance.
Step 7: Refine Draft (Denoise)
- Replace
[NEEDS VERIFICATION] with sourced facts
- Add inline citations with confidence: "According to [Source] (high confidence), ..."
- Qualify or remove unsupported claims
- Address contradictions explicitly
- Add counterarguments
Context management: If accumulating too much research, compress raw notes into key findings before continuing. Discard redundant/low-value information.
Step 8: Evaluate Quality
Score 1-10 on:
- Comprehensiveness: All key questions addressed?
- Accuracy: Claims well-sourced with appropriate confidence?
Track across iterations:
QUALITY LOG:
Iteration 1: Comprehensiveness 5, Accuracy 4, Avg 4.5
Iteration 2: Comprehensiveness 7, Accuracy 6, Avg 6.5
Iteration 3: Comprehensiveness 8, Accuracy 8, Avg 8.0 ✓
If average < 7: Return to Step 4 (max 3 cycles).
If score drops between iterations: Focus critique on what regressed.
Step 9: Finalize
# [Title]
## Executive Summary
[Key findings in 2-3 paragraphs]
## Findings
[Organized by research questions, with inline citations]
## Methodology
[Brief: sources consulted, confidence levels, any unresolved contradictions]
## Limitations
[Gaps, uncertainties, disputed claims]
## Sources
[Numbered list with confidence indicators]
See references/report-templates.md for format variants.
Example
Input: "Research the current state of nuclear fusion energy"
Research Brief:
Topic: Current state of nuclear fusion energy
Key Questions:
1. What are the leading approaches and projects?
2. What milestones have been achieved recently?
3. What are realistic timelines for commercial fusion?
Constraints: Focus on scientific/engineering progress, not policy
Draft Excerpt (before research):
Nuclear fusion has made significant progress [CONFIDENCE: LOW].
The National Ignition Facility achieved ignition [NEEDS VERIFICATION].
Private companies like [RESEARCH NEEDED] are also pursuing fusion.
Post-search reflection:
REFLECTION after search 1 (NIF ignition):
- Found: NIF achieved ignition Dec 2022, 3.15 MJ from 2.05 MJ input
- Source: Lawrence Livermore (official) - Confidence 95
- Gap: Private sector landscape still unknown
- Next: Search for private fusion companies
Source tracking:
FACT: NIF achieved fusion ignition December 2022
SOURCE: llnl.gov/news/...
CONFIDENCE: 95
DISPUTED: No
Quality log:
Iteration 1: Comp 5, Acc 4 → Need private sector + timelines
Iteration 2: Comp 8, Acc 7 → Good coverage, strengthen citations
Iteration 3: Comp 9, Acc 8 → Done ✓
When to Use
Use: Complex questions, comparisons, due diligence, state-of-art surveys
Don't use: Simple lookups (use web_search directly), opinions, creative writing
References
