storm

name	storm
description	Stanford STORM-style PhD-grade deep research in ONE prompt. Use when the user wants to research a topic deeply, get a multi-perspective and source-grounded report, a literature-review-style briefing, "research like a PhD / like a Stanford grad student", a STORM report, or an in-depth cited analysis of any subject. Runs perspective discovery, parallel grounded web interviews, a contradiction map, an outline, a fully cited Wikipedia-style article, a synthesis briefing, and a self peer-review with reliability scores.
argument-hint	<topic> [--depth quick|standard|deep] [--lang fr|en|...] [--no-web]
allowed-tools	Task, WebSearch, WebFetch, Write, Read, Glob, TodoWrite
model	inherit

STORM — Deep Research in One Prompt

You are running STORM (Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question asking), the Stanford OVAL research method, fused with Nav Toor's 4-prompt adaptation — executed end-to-end from this single invocation. Your job is to turn one topic into a multi-perspective, source-grounded, fully cited research deliverable that would take a PhD student 40–60 hours by hand.

Topic / arguments: $ARGUMENTS

If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask the user for exactly one thing — the topic — then proceed. Otherwise parse it as:

• the topic (everything that isn't a flag);
• optional --depth quick|standard|deep (default standard);
• optional --lang <code> (default: the language of the topic/query — write the entire deliverable in that language, e.g. French if the topic is French);
• optional --no-web (skip web retrieval; rely on parametric knowledge only and clearly flag the report as ungrounded — prefer /storm:storm-brief for that).

Read reference.md (next to this file) now for the exact persona set, interview protocol, word caps, citation-globalization algorithm, and the final report template. Follow it precisely.

Create a TodoWrite list with the 7 phases below and work through them in order. Tell the user this is a deep, multi-agent run (it will dispatch several subagents and make many web searches) before you start the heavy work.

---

Depth presets

Depth	Perspectives	Interview rounds	Section writers
quick	3 + basic	2	inline (no subagents)
standard	5 + basic	3	parallel subagents
deep	6–7 + basic	4	parallel subagents

"+ basic" = always include the STORM Basic fact writer generalist pass.

---

Phase 1 — Perspective discovery

STORM persona survey (standard/deep): first run 1–2 quick WebSearches for survey / overview / "encyclopedia" articles on the topic and skim their section structure (tables of contents). Derive 1–2 topic-specific personas from recurring specialist sections (e.g. a "Clinician" for a disease, a "Regulator" for a policy). For quick depth, skip the survey. This is STORM's actual data-driven persona discovery.

Then fix the persona list: map the remaining slots onto Nav Toor's five lenses, adapted and renamed to fit the topic (drop one that genuinely doesn't apply):

1. The Practitioner — works with this daily. What do insiders know that academics miss? What practical realities get ignored?
2. The Academic — what does the peer-reviewed evidence actually say? Where does it contradict popular belief?
3. The Skeptic — the strongest counterargument; what proponents conveniently ignore.
4. The Economist / Incentives analyst — follow the money; who profits from the current narrative; what incentives shape the research.
5. The Historian — historical parallels; how similar patterns played out.

Always add the STORM Basic fact writer — a generalist who simply nails the broad, foundational facts.

State your final persona list (and any topic-specific adaptation) in one short block before dispatching.

Phase 2 — Multi-perspective grounded interviews (parallel)

This is STORM's knowledge-curation stage and the heart of the method.

• Dispatch one storm-researcher subagent per persona, ALL IN PARALLEL (multiple Task calls in a single message). Use subagent type storm:storm-researcher (plugin agents are always namespaced plugin:agent). If that exact type isn't available, use general-purpose and give it BOTH the interview protocol (reference.md §3) AND the full return-packet schema from agents/storm-researcher.md (or tell it to Read that file), so the fallback returns the same structured packet.
• Give each subagent: the TOPIC, its PERSPECTIVE (name + focus), ROUNDS (per depth), and LANGUAGE.
• Each returns a findings packet: core position, grounded key claims with local [n] citations, an only-this-perspective insight, strongest evidence, open question, and a numbered Sources list (Title — URL).
• If --no-web, skip subagents and instead reason through each perspective yourself from parametric knowledge, clearly labeling everything as ungrounded.

When the packets return, build the global source pool: collect every source together with the key facts/snippets each researcher attached to it, de-duplicate by URL (merging the facts), and assign each unique URL a single global index [1..N]. Keep a map from each subagent's local citations to the global index. (See the globalization algorithm in reference.md §4.)

Phase 3 — Contradiction map

Analyze the packets together (Nav Toor's Prompt 2):

1. Direct contradictions — where two+ perspectives clash, with the specific claims that conflict (cite both sides).
2. Strongest vs weakest evidence — which perspective is best/worst supported, and why.
3. The resolving question — the single question that, if answered, would settle the biggest contradiction.
4. Universal agreement — what every perspective concedes (likely true, since even opponents confirm it).
5. The blind spot — what no perspective addressed (often the most valuable gap in the whole field).

Every [n] you carry over from a researcher packet into the contradiction map must first be converted to its global index via the Phase 2 map — local packet numbers must never appear in the deliverable.

Phase 4 — Outline

STORM outline stage: first sketch a draft outline from general knowledge, then refine it using the interview findings and the contradiction map. Use Markdown depth #/##/###. The outline should be comprehensive and non-redundant; do not include a "Summary"/"Introduction" section (the lead is generated in Phase 6) and don't repeat the topic name as a heading.

Phase 5 — Cited article generation

STORM article stage. For each top-level (#) section of the outline:

• Rank the global pool against the section's subheadings and select the most relevant sources (STORM default ~top-3 per section; expand only if the section genuinely needs more). Pass each writer those sources with their attached key facts/snippets so it can cite without re-fetching.
• For standard/deep, dispatch storm:storm-writer subagents in parallel (one per section), passing TOPIC, the SECTION outline fragment, the relevant globally numbered SOURCES (with facts), and LANGUAGE. If storm:storm-writer is unavailable, use general-purpose with the writer instructions from agents/storm-writer.md (or tell it to Read that file). For quick, write sections inline. Cap concurrency at ~8–10 parallel Task calls (STORM's max_thread_num); if the outline has more top-level sections, run them in sequential batches of that size.
• Each section uses inline [n] citations referencing the global indices, neutral encyclopedic tone, every sentence grounded, and no per-section References list.
• If a writer retrieved new sources, it returns them in ### Sources added as [N1] Title — URL. For each writer, assign every [Nk] a real global index (de-duplicating by URL against the pool), then rewrite that writer's inline [Nk] markers to the assigned global numbers before assembly. Each writer's [Nk] namespace is scoped to itself, so parallel writers never collide.

Assemble the sections into the article body in outline order.

Phase 6 — Polish + synthesis briefing

(a) Lead section (STORM polishing): write a ## Summary lead of ≤4 well-composed, cited paragraphs that stands alone as an overview (topic, context, why it's notable, key points and any prominent controversy). Remove obvious repetition across sections.

(b) Synthesis briefing (Nav Toor's Prompt 3):

1. One-paragraph executive summary — brief a CEO who has 60 seconds and needs nuance, not a headline.
2. 5 key findings, ranked by reliability — for each, note which perspectives support it and which challenge it, with citations (converted to global indices via the Phase 2 map).
3. The hidden connection — one non-obvious link that only appears across all perspectives at once.
4. The actionable insight — what someone in the user's role should actually do differently (be specific). Ask/infer the user's role from the query.
5. The frontier question — the one open question that would change how we understand the topic.

Phase 7 — Self peer-review + assembly

(a) Peer review (Nav Toor's Prompt 4) — STORM's known weakness is that it doesn't self-critique, so do it explicitly:

1. Confidence scores (1–10) for each of the 5 key findings, with a one-line justification each.
2. Weakest link — the claim you're least sure of and the exact evidence needed to verify it.
3. Bias check — which perspective may be overrepresented; did one voice dominate?
4. Missing perspective — a 6th angle that could change the conclusions.
5. Overall grade — the grade a Stanford professor would give this briefing, and what they'd tell you to fix.

(b) Assemble the final report in the order defined by the template in reference.md: Title → Summary (lead) → Synthesis briefing → full article body → Contradiction map → Peer-review scorecard → numbered References (the global URL-deduplicated list, as clickable links). Before finalizing, confirm that every inline citation across the whole document — article body, contradiction map, synthesis and peer review — uses a global index, and that the References list contains exactly the globals cited somewhere in the document (drop the rest).

(c) Save it. Write the report to storm-<kebab-topic>.md in the current working directory with the Write tool, then give the user a tight chat summary: the headline finding, the single most important contradiction, the actionable insight, the overall reliability grade, the source count, and the saved file path. Offer to also export an HTML/PDF-ready version if they want one.

---

Guardrails

• Grounded by default. Every factual claim in the article and the findings must trace to a real retrieved source with a URL. Mark anything you couldn't verify as [unverified]. Never fabricate sources, quotes, numbers, or dates.
• Parallelize (with a cap). Dispatch same-phase subagents in one message so they run concurrently — don't serialize the interviews or section writers — but keep at most ~8–10 in flight at once (STORM's max_thread_num); batch the rest.
• Be honest about cost. This is intentionally heavy. If the user wants the fast 5-minute version without web retrieval, point them to /storm:storm-brief.
• Language. Produce the entire deliverable in the resolved --lang (default: the language of the user's query).