canvas-deep-research

name	canvas-deep-research
description	Source-backed research workflow for Pulse Canvas bootstrapping, due diligence, technical/product/market landscape analysis, current-state research, and any canvas task where Codex must gather reliable evidence before producing an artifact. Use when canvas-bootstrap needs a bundled research protocol, or when the user asks to research reliable sources before creating or organizing a canvas.

Canvas Deep Research

Produce evidence-backed research briefs with explicit scope, source quality, uncertainty, and a reusable handoff for downstream artifacts such as reports, plans, or canvas workspaces.

Operating Modes

• If the user directly requests research and has not provided scope or depth, ask for the missing scope and a depth choice before searching.
• If a parent skill supplies an approved scope, depth, and plan, proceed without re-asking the user.
• Use the user's language for questions and final synthesis unless a source quote or artifact format requires otherwise.
• Browse the web for current, unstable, niche, legal, medical, financial, market, product, standards, API, or vendor facts.
• Prefer primary and official sources for facts about products, APIs, policies, specs, prices, regulations, organizations, and people.
• Do not fabricate sources, dates, quotes, statistics, or consensus. Label inference as inference.
• This skill does not mutate canvas nodes or files by itself. Return structured research that another skill can use.

Depth Levels

• quick: 1-2 research angles, a small set of high-signal sources, concise findings, and clear caveats. Use for orientation or low-stakes decisions.
• standard: 3-5 research angles, primary plus credible secondary sources, conflict checks, source ledger, and an actionable synthesis. Use as the default for canvas bootstrap work.
• deep: staged passes across primary sources, expert or institutional sources, recent developments, counterarguments, contradictions, and open questions. Use for high-stakes or strategy-shaping work.

When the user asks for "high quality" or "deep research" without a depth, default to deep only after confirming the time/cost tradeoff if the work is user-facing. Parent skills may choose deep from an approved plan.

Workflow

1. Define the Research Contract

Capture:

• topic and decision context
• intended audience
• research depth
• date range and geography, if relevant
• must-include and must-exclude areas
• success criteria for a good answer

If user-facing, present the contract briefly and ask for approval before a long research pass unless the user already approved a plan.

2. Plan Before Searching

Draft a short research plan:

• core questions to answer
• source strategy by question
• expected source types, such as official docs, standards, datasets, research papers, company filings, reputable media, or local files
• contradiction checks and risk areas
• output shape, including whether a canvas handoff is needed

For deep, split the plan into multiple passes so findings from early passes can refine later searches.

3. Collect Evidence

For each source used, record:

• stable source id, such as S1
• title
• publisher or author
• date published or updated when visible
• URL or local path
• source type
• why it is relevant

Use short quotes only when exact wording matters. Otherwise paraphrase and cite the source id.

4. Cross-Check and Synthesize

• Compare claims across source types before treating them as settled.
• Separate "what sources say" from "what this implies".
• Surface conflicts, stale data, weak evidence, and missing information.
• Prefer fewer strong findings over many thin observations.
• Assign confidence per major finding: high, medium, or low.

5. Produce the Research Brief

Return a brief with this structure when possible:

research_brief:
  scope: "What was researched"
  depth: "quick | standard | deep"
  executive_summary:
    - "Most important takeaway"
  key_findings:
    - claim: "Evidence-backed finding"
      support: ["S1", "S2"]
      confidence: "high | medium | low"
      implication: "Why this matters"
  contradictions:
    - issue: "Where sources disagree or evidence is weak"
      sources: ["S3", "S4"]
  source_ledger:
    - id: "S1"
      title: "Source title"
      publisher: "Publisher"
      date: "Published or updated date, if available"
      url_or_path: "URL or local path"
      type: "official | primary | paper | dataset | media | local | other"
      note: "Why it was used"
  open_questions:
    - "Question that remains unresolved"
  canvas_candidates:
    frames:
      - title: "Frame title"
        purpose: "Why this grouping exists"
        nodes:
          - title: "Node title"
            summary: "Content to place in the node"
            source_ids: ["S1"]
    edges:
      - from: "Frame or node title"
        to: "Frame or node title"
        label: "Relationship"
        kind: "flow | dependency | reference | contrast"

Keep canvas_candidates concise. It is a handoff, not a final layout.

Canvas Handoff Rules

When another skill such as canvas-bootstrap will create a canvas:

• Organize findings into natural frames, not a fixed template.
• Suggest 3-6 frames for most topics.
• Suggest 2-4 substantial content nodes per frame.
• Include source ids inside each node summary so final canvas content can cite evidence.
• Include only meaningful edges; avoid connecting everything to everything.
• Mark draft, uncertain, or assumption-heavy nodes clearly.