research

name	research
description	Diagnose research quality and guide systematic query expansion. Use when starting research on any topic, when stuck in research, or when unsure if research is complete.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"jwynia","version":"1.0","domain":"research","cluster":"methodology"}

Research Skill

Systematic research query expansion and completion assessment. Transforms basic questions into comprehensive search strategies.

Diagnostic States

R1: No Analysis

Symptoms: Jumping straight to searching without analyzing the topic. Test: Can you articulate stakeholders, temporal scope, and domain mapping? Intervention: Run Phase 0 Analysis Template before generating queries.

R1.5: No Vocabulary Map

Symptoms: Using outsider/introductory terminology. Finding only surface-level material. Test: Have you identified expert vs. outsider terms? Terms across domains? Intervention: Build vocabulary map. Hunt for "also known as," "technically called" in early sources.

R2: Single-Perspective Search

Symptoms: All queries support one viewpoint. Missing counterarguments. Test: Have you explicitly searched for opposing perspectives? Intervention: Generate competing perspectives queries. Search for strongest counterargument.

R3: Domain Blindness

Symptoms: Searching only in familiar field. Missing cross-disciplinary insights. Test: Have you mapped terminology variants across fields? Intervention: Identify what adjacent fields call this topic. Search in at least 2 domains. Update vocabulary map.

R4: Recency Bias

Symptoms: Only recent sources. Missing historical context. Test: Can you explain when this topic emerged and how it evolved? Intervention: Add historical context queries. Find seminal works.

R5: Breadth Without Depth

Symptoms: Many tabs, no synthesis. Can't explain core concepts. Test: Can you define key terms in your own words? Intervention: Apply 3-source rule per perspective. Summarize before searching more.

R6: Completion Uncertainty

Symptoms: Unsure whether to continue or stop. Research expanding indefinitely. Test: Can you answer the tiered completion criteria? Intervention: Run completion checklist. Look for diminishing returns signals.

R7: Research Complete

Symptoms: Can explain topic, identify uncertainties, and take action. Indicators: Circular references, repetitive findings, sufficient for purpose.

R8: No Persistence

Symptoms: Starting from scratch each session. Re-discovering same vocabulary. Test: Did you check for prior research before starting? Are you storing findings? Intervention: Store vocabulary map, sources, digested notes, and gaps for future use.

R9: Scope Mismatch

Symptoms: Over-researching trivial questions. Under-researching critical decisions. Test: Is research depth proportional to decision stakes? Intervention: Apply scope calibration. Match confidence level to decision reversibility and stakes.

R10: No Confidence Signaling

Symptoms: Hedging language everywhere. Reader can't tell what's certain vs. speculative. Test: Can reader distinguish established facts from speculation? Intervention: Use explicit confidence markers. State source quality and consensus status.

Phase 0: Analysis Template

Before searching, structure your topic:

# Research Analysis: [Topic]

## Core Concepts
- **Primary terms:** [Key terms requiring definition]
- **Terminology variants:** [Synonyms, jargon, historical terms]
- **Ambiguous terms:** [Terms with multiple meanings]

## Stakeholders
- **Primary actors:** [Who is directly involved?]
- **Affected groups:** [Who bears consequences?]
- **Opposing interests:** [Who benefits from different outcomes?]

## Temporal Scope
- **Historical origins:** [When did this begin?]
- **Key transitions:** [What changed and when?]
- **Current state:** [What's happening now?]

## Domains
- **Primary field:** [Main discipline]
- **Adjacent fields:** [Related disciplines]

## Controversies
- **Active debates:** [What's contested?]
- **Competing frameworks:** [Different ways of understanding]

Query Types

1. Foundational: "term definition AND field review"
2. Historical: "topic history development [date range]"
3. Current: "topic current trends [recent years]"
4. Competing: "topic debate AND (perspective1 OR perspective2)"
5. Evidence: "topic impact measurement study data"

Completion Criteria

Minimum Viable (Quick Decisions)

• Can define core concepts in own words
• Know 2-3 major perspectives
• Found authoritative source per perspective
• Identified known unknowns

Working Knowledge (Most Decisions)

• Can explain historical context
• Understand stakeholder positions
• Encountered counterarguments
• Checked multiple domains

Deep Expertise (High-Stakes)

• Traced claims to primary sources
• Can evaluate competing evidence
• Understand knowledge limitations

Diminishing Returns Signals

Stop when:

• New sources cite same foundational works (circular)
• New searches return familiar content (repetitive)
• Each hour adds less than previous (marginal)
• Can make decision or take action (sufficient)

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Symptom	Fix
Confirmation Trap	Searching to confirm, not learn	Search for strongest counterargument
Authority Fallacy	Accepting claims by source prestige	Evaluate evidence, not source
Recency Trap	Only recent sources	Explicitly search historical periods
Breadth Trap	50 tabs, none read	3-source rule, summarize before continuing
Single-Source	Wikipedia as final answer	Require 3 independent sources
Jargon Blind Spot	Missing other fields' terminology	Map variants, search multiple domains
Infinite Rabbit Hole	Lost original purpose	Write decision/action anchor, return to it

Vocabulary Mapping

Primary research deliverable. Vocabulary determines search space and LLM semantic activation.

Why It Matters

• Expert terms → expert material. Outsider terms → introductory material.
• Precise vocabulary activates richer LLM semantic space.
• Cross-domain terms bridge bodies of work that use different names.

Vocabulary Map Template

## Core Terms
| Term | Domain | Depth Level |
|------|--------|-------------|
| [expert term] | [field] | Expert |
| [outsider term] | General | Introductory |

## Cross-Domain Synonyms
| Concept | Terms by Domain |
|---------|-----------------|
| [concept] | Field A: [term], Field B: [term] |

## Depth Indicators
| Level | Terms | What They Surface |
|-------|-------|-------------------|
| Introductory | [terms] | Overviews, explainers |
| Expert | [terms] | Research, nuanced analysis |

Discovery Process

1. Note which terms feel like outsider language
2. In early sources, watch for "also known as," "technically called"
3. Map terms across domains
4. Test different terms in searches, note what surfaces

Research Persistence

Store both sources AND digested results. Don't start from scratch.

What to Store

Layer	Contents
Vocabulary Map	Terms, domains, depth levels
Sources	PDFs, saved pages, bookmarks
Digested Notes	Summaries, key quotes, synthesis
Query Log	Searches that worked/failed
Gaps	What remains unknown

Before Starting

Check for prior research. Load vocabulary map. Start where you left off.

Single-Shot Research

When research runs without follow-up questions (agent execution, time-boxed queries):

Scope Calibration

Decision Type	Confidence Needed	Research Depth
Reversible, low-stakes	60-70%	Quick scan (minutes)
Reversible, moderate	75-85%	Working knowledge (1-2 hours)
Irreversible, moderate	85-90%	Solid grounding (half day)
Irreversible, high	90-95%	Deep expertise (days)

Question Pattern → Strategy

Pattern	Strategy
"What is X?"	2-3 authoritative sources, establish consensus
"Should I X?"	Pros/cons, alternatives, conditions for each
"Is X true?"	Primary sources, counter-evidence, consensus check
"How do I X?"	Step-by-step, prerequisites, common pitfalls

Source Type Selection

Source	Best For
Wikipedia/Encyclopedias	Orientation, terminology, citation hunting
Academic papers	Mechanism, causation, methodology
Practitioner content	How things actually work, edge cases
Official docs	Technical specs, policy, procedures

Synthesis Template

## Summary
[Direct answer to question]

## Confidence Level
[High/Medium/Low] - [Justification]

## Key Findings
1. [Finding with source type]

## Caveats
- [What wasn't consulted]
- [What assumptions were made]

## For Deeper Investigation
[What would increase confidence]

Confidence Markers

Level	Phrases
Established	"X is...", "X works by..."
Strong evidence	"Evidence strongly suggests..."
Moderate evidence	"Most sources report..."
Limited evidence	"One study found..."
Unknown	"No reliable information found..."

Single-Shot Checklist

• Scope matched to stakes?
• Multiple source types consulted?
• Counter-evidence sought?
• Confidence level explicit?
• Gaps acknowledged?

Health Check Questions

During research, ask:

1. Am I searching to learn or to confirm?
2. What's the strongest argument against my current view?
3. Have I looked outside my familiar domains?
4. Can I summarize what I've learned so far?
5. Is this still serving my original purpose?
6. Am I using expert or outsider vocabulary?
7. Have I stored what I've learned for future use?
8. Is my depth proportional to the stakes?
9. Am I signaling confidence explicitly?

Integration Points

Skill	Connection
doppelganger	Research informs decisions; apply /truth-check to findings
context-networks	Store research findings in appropriate network node
boundary-critique	Apply to advice and recommendations encountered

Output Persistence

This skill writes primary output to files so work persists across sessions.

Output Discovery

Before doing any other work:

1. Check for context/output-config.md in the project
2. If found, look for this skill's entry
3. If not found or no entry for this skill, ask the user first:
   • "Where should I save output from this research session?"
   • Suggest: explorations/research/ or a sensible location for this project
4. Store the user's preference:
   • In context/output-config.md if context network exists
   • In .research-output.md at project root otherwise

Primary Output

For this skill, persist:

• Vocabulary map - terms, domains, depth levels, cross-domain synonyms
• Phase 0 analysis - core concepts, stakeholders, temporal scope, domains
• Synthesis document - summary, confidence levels, key findings, caveats
• Source assessment - sources consulted with quality notes
• Gaps identified - what remains unknown, next steps

Conversation vs. File

Goes to File	Stays in Conversation
Vocabulary map	Discussion of term discovery
Synthesis document	Query refinement iterations
Source list with assessments	Real-time source evaluation
Gap analysis	Clarifying questions
Confidence-marked findings	Follow-up investigations

File Naming

Pattern: {topic}-research-{date}.md Example: competency-frameworks-research-2025-01-15.md

Relationship to Research Persistence Section

The "Research Persistence" section above describes WHAT to store. This section operationalizes WHERE and HOW - ensuring the skill checks for configured locations, asks the user when needed, and writes output consistently.

Source Framework

Derived from: frameworks/research/research-framework.md