| name | deep-research |
| description | Multi-source deep research that produces cited, confidence-scored briefs. Searches across Exa, Tavily, and web in parallel. Extracts claims, scores confidence, surfaces contradictions. Works with zero API keys (WebSearch fallback), improves with each provider added. Use when: 'research this', 'deep research', 'deep research', 'investigate', 'what do we know about', 'find out about', or any open-ended research question.
|
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","Bash","Agent","WebFetch","WebSearch","mcp__claude_ai_Tavily__tavily_search","mcp__claude_ai_Tavily__tavily_extract","mcp__claude_ai_Tavily__tavily_research","mcp__claude_ai_Exa__web_search_exa","mcp__claude_ai_Exa__web_fetch_exa"] |
| argument-hint | <topic or question> [--quick] [--deep] [--agent] [--save path/to/output.md] |
Deep Research — Multi-Source Research with Cross-Referencing
Research any topic across multiple search providers simultaneously. Produces a confidence-scored research brief with cross-referenced findings, evidence matrix, contradiction surfacing, and structured source tracking.
Core Design
Three phases with an interactive planning step. Complexity lives in search quality and synthesis rigor, not pipeline overhead.
PLAN (interactive) → DISCOVER (parallel) → SYNTHESIZE (cross-reference) → CRITIQUE (--deep only)
Graceful degradation. Works with zero API keys using Claude's built-in WebSearch. Each additional provider (Tavily, Exa) adds coverage without changing the workflow.
| Provider | Best At | Requires |
|---|
| WebSearch | General queries, broad coverage | Nothing (built-in) |
| Tavily | Structured retrieval, recent events, RAG-native output | Tavily MCP connected |
| Exa | Semantic/conceptual search, academic content, "find similar" | Exa MCP connected |
Modes
| Mode | Flag | Sources | Critique | Best For |
|---|
| Quick | --quick | 3-5 | No | Fast answers, gut-checks |
| Standard (default) | none | 8-15 | No | Most research questions |
| Deep | --deep | 15-30 | Yes (loop-back) | High-stakes, publishable research |
| Agent | --agent | Standard | No | Autonomous, non-interactive |
Combine flags: --deep --save docs/research/topic.md
Arguments
- Argument 1 (required): Research topic or question
--quick: Fast mode, fewer sources, no critique--deep: Thorough mode, more sources, adversarial critique with loop-back--agent: Non-interactive, saves report without asking, exits cleanly--save <path>: Write the research brief to this file path
Procedure
Phase 0: Frame the Research
Parse flags from $ARGUMENTS. Remove flags, remainder is the research topic.
Classify the query type:
| Type | Signal | Affects Search Strategy |
|---|
| Factual | "What is...", "When did...", "How does..." | Prioritize authoritative sources, verify facts |
| Comparative | "X vs Y", "compare", "difference between" | Run parallel searches for each entity |
| Exploratory | "What's happening with...", "state of..." | Cast wide net, prioritize recency |
| Forecasting | "Will...", "future of...", "predictions" | Include prediction markets, expert opinions |
Generate 2-4 search perspectives (inspired by STORM):
- Don't search from one angle. For "state of AI agents in 2026", generate:
- Technical: "AI agent frameworks architectures 2026"
- Market: "AI agent companies funding revenue 2026"
- Practitioner: "AI agent developer experience pain points 2026"
- Contrarian: "AI agent limitations failures overhyped 2026"
Each perspective becomes a parallel search query.
Phase 0b: Research Plan (interactive, skip in --quick and --agent)
Before searching, generate a structured research plan and present it to the user for approval. This is the most impactful quality lever — it ensures the research covers the right angles.
## Research Plan: [Topic]
I'll investigate these angles:
1. [Subtopic A] — [what we're looking for, which perspective]
2. [Subtopic B] — [what we're looking for]
3. [Subtopic C] — [contrasting viewpoint or edge case]
4. [Subtopic D] — [practical/applied angle]
Estimated: [N] sources across [available providers].
Adjust this plan or say "go" to start.
The user can add/remove subtopics, refine scope, or approve as-is. Each approved subtopic becomes a search perspective in Phase 1.
In --quick mode: skip the plan, use the auto-generated perspectives from Phase 0.
In --agent mode: skip the plan, proceed autonomously.
Phase 1: DISCOVER — Parallel Multi-Source Search
Detect available providers by attempting to use each tool. If a tool call fails with "not available" or similar, fall back gracefully.
Search strategy by provider:
For each search perspective (2-4 queries):
WebSearch (always available):
- Search the query
- Read top 2-3 results via WebFetch for full content
Tavily (if available):
- tavily_search with search_depth="advanced" for structured results
- tavily_extract on the most promising URLs for full content
Exa (if available):
- web_search_exa for semantic matches (catches what keyword search misses)
- web_fetch_exa on top results for content
Deduplicate by URL across providers.
Source targets by mode:
| Mode | WebSearch | Tavily | Exa | Total Target |
|---|
| Quick | 3-5 results | 2-3 | 2-3 | 3-5 unique |
| Standard | 5-8 results | 3-5 | 3-5 | 8-15 unique |
| Deep | 8-12 results | 5-8 | 5-8 | 15-30 unique |
For each source, capture:
- URL
- Title
- Author (if available)
- Date (if available)
- Source type:
academic | news | blog | official | social | forum
- Full content or relevant excerpt
Write-after-every-search rule: After each batch of searches completes, write a brief progress note. This prevents agent loops and ensures partial results survive context compaction.
Phase 2: SYNTHESIZE — Claims, Confidence, Contradictions
Process all discovered sources in a single synthesis pass. This is where the research brief takes shape.
Step 2a: Assign IDs and extract atomic claims
Assign each source an ID (S1, S2, ...) as it's processed. For each source, extract discrete factual claims. A claim is a single assertion with a subject, verb, and specific value:
- YES: "Tavily was acquired by Nebius in February 2026"
[S3]
- NO: "Tavily is a popular search tool" (vague, not falsifiable)
Each finding gets an ID (F1, F2, ...) for cross-referencing.
Step 2b: Coreference pass — group related claims
Before scoring, identify claims that refer to the same phenomenon using different terminology. Group them under a canonical term:
- If Source A calls it "context window stuffing" and Source B calls it "retrieval augmentation" but they describe the same mechanism, merge into one finding with a note listing alternate terms.
- If two claims seem similar but differ meaningfully (scope, mechanism, conditions), keep them separate and note the distinction.
Step 2c: Score confidence with triangulation
| Confidence | Criteria | Triangulation | Marker |
|---|
| High | 3+ independent sources agree | Data or methodological triangulation | No marker needed |
| Medium | 1-2 credible sources | Single-method confirmation | (medium confidence) |
| Low | Single source, or blog/social only | No triangulation | (unverified) |
| Conflicting | Sources directly contradict | — | (sources conflict — see Evidence Matrix) |
Step 2d: Build cross-references
For each finding, note:
- Which sources support it (by ID)
- Which findings it relates to (extends, contradicts, or qualifies)
- Which search perspectives surfaced it
Step 2e: Write the research brief
Structure the output using the cross-referenced template:
# Research Brief: [Topic]
*[N] sources consulted across [providers used]. [Date]. Mode: [quick/standard/deep].*
## Key Findings
### F1: [Atomic claim as title]
[1-3 sentence synthesis with inline [S1], [S3] citations]
**Confidence:** High | **Triangulation:** 3 sources, 2 methods
**Cross-refs:** Extends F2. Contradicts F4 on [specific dimension].
### F2: [Atomic claim as title]
[synthesis with [S2], [S4] citations]
**Confidence:** Medium | **Triangulation:** 2 sources, same method
**Cross-refs:** Builds on F1.
[5-10 findings for standard, 3-5 for quick, 10-15 for deep]
## Evidence Matrix
| Finding | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 |
|---------|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| F1 | + | | + | | + |
| F2 | + | - | + | + | |
| F3 | | + | | | - |
*Legend: + supports, - contradicts, blank = not addressed*
## Analysis
[2-4 paragraphs synthesizing the findings into a coherent narrative.
Don't just list facts — explain what they mean together.
Flag where the evidence is strong vs. where it's thin.
Reference findings by ID (F1, F2) so the reader can trace back.]
## Contradictions & Tensions
[For each contradiction, present both sides with source IDs:]
> **F2 vs F3:** [S2] claims X, but [S5] found the opposite when [condition].
> Resolution likely depends on [factor].
## Terminology Map
| Canonical Term | Also Called (by source) |
|---------------|----------------------|
| [term] | "[alt1]" [S1], "[alt2]" [S3] |
[Include only when sources use different names for the same concept.
Omit this section if no terminology conflicts were found.]
## Knowledge Gaps
> **[Gap]** No source addressed [specific unanswered question].
> **[Gap]** All sources predate [date] — no data on [recent development].
> **[Gap]** Only [perspective] was represented — [missing perspective] not found.
## Sources
| ID | Title | Author | Date | Type | Cited by |
|----|-------|--------|------|------|----------|
| S1 | [title](url) | [author] | [date] | academic | F1, F2, F4 |
| S2 | [title](url) | [author] | [date] | official | F2, F3 |
Phase 3: CRITIQUE — Adversarial Review (--deep only)
Only runs in --deep mode. Skip for standard and quick.
Step 3a: Adversarial self-review
Review the draft brief and ask:
- Which key findings rely on a single source? Flag as fragile.
- Which claims could be outdated? Check dates.
- What perspectives are missing? What would a skeptic ask?
- Are there obvious search queries we didn't try?
Step 3b: Gap-filling (loop-back)
If the critique identifies 1-3 specific gaps:
- Generate targeted delta-queries for each gap
- Run additional searches (Phase 1, scoped to gaps only)
- Integrate new findings into the brief
- Maximum 1 loop-back to prevent infinite recursion
Step 3c: Confidence recalibration
After gap-filling, re-score any claims that gained or lost supporting sources.
Phase 4: DELIVER
Show key findings inline in chat — the user shouldn't need to open a file to see results.
Present the top 5-7 findings with confidence markers directly in the conversation.
Save the full brief if --save flag is present or --agent mode:
- Default path:
docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-[topic-slug].md
- Custom path via
--save path/to/file.md
- Create directories as needed
In --agent mode: Save the brief, print the file path, exit. No questions asked.
In interactive mode: Show findings in chat, then ask:
- "Save this brief?" (with suggested path)
- "Research deeper on any finding?"
- "Done"
Fallback Behavior
| Scenario | Behavior |
|---|
| No Tavily, no Exa | WebSearch + WebFetch only. Flag: "Limited to web search — install Tavily or Exa MCP for broader coverage" |
| No WebSearch available | Use only Tavily/Exa. If neither available, use training knowledge only and flag EVERY claim as (unverified — no search tools available) |
| Search returns <3 results | Flag: "Limited results found. Consider broadening the query or checking search connectivity." |
| Source content too long | Summarize key sections, cite page/section, link to full source |
What NOT to Do
- No 30-page reports. Keep briefs to 1-3 pages. Depth comes from claim quality, not word count.
- No hidden contradictions. If sources disagree, surface it. Don't silently pick a winner.
- No confidence theater. Don't tag everything as [HIGH] — if you only found one source, say so.
- No unsourced claims. Every factual assertion needs a citation. Synthesis and analysis can be uncited (they're your reasoning), but facts need sources.
- No search loops. Write-after-every-search prevents infinite searching. Maximum 1 critique loop-back in deep mode.
- No provider shaming. Don't tell users they need API keys. Work with what's available and note when broader coverage would help.
Credits
Skill by: Neal Meyer
Multi-perspective search: Inspired by Stanford STORM framework
Critique loop-back pattern: Informed by 199-biotechnologies/claude-deep-research-skill
Confidence scoring: Adapted from CRAAP framework
