| name | content-research-writer |
| description | Use when the user needs research methodology, long-form content creation, academic-style citations, fact-checking, or evidence-based writing with proper source attribution. Trigger conditions: whitepaper drafting, research article writing, source evaluation, citation management, fact-checking protocol, case study creation, evidence-based argumentation.
|
Content Research Writer
Overview
Produce well-researched, authoritative long-form content with proper source attribution, structured argumentation, and evidence-based claims. This skill covers research methodology, source evaluation, citation management, outline construction, drafting workflows, fact-checking protocols, and publishing-ready formatting for articles, whitepapers, reports, and educational content.
Apply this skill whenever content must be backed by evidence, cited properly, and structured for credibility with expert audiences.
Multi-Phase Process
Phase 1: Research Planning
- Define the topic scope and target audience
- Identify key questions the content must answer
- Determine content type (article, whitepaper, case study, guide)
- Set word count target and depth level
- Establish credibility requirements (peer-reviewed, industry reports, primary data)
- Create a research timeline with milestones
STOP — Do NOT begin source discovery until the research plan is documented and scope is agreed upon.
Phase 2: Source Discovery and Evaluation
- Search academic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, arXiv)
- Identify industry reports and authoritative publications
- Find primary sources (official documentation, datasets, specifications)
- Evaluate source credibility using the CRAAP test (see table below)
- Organize sources in a reference manager or structured format
- Extract key findings, statistics, and quotable passages
STOP — Do NOT begin outlining until you have sufficient Tier 1-2 sources for every core claim.
Phase 3: Outline and Structure
- Create a thesis statement or central argument
- Build hierarchical outline with main sections and subsections
- Map evidence to each section (which sources support which claims)
- Identify gaps requiring additional research
- Define transitions between sections for narrative flow
- Plan visual elements (tables, charts, diagrams, callouts)
STOP — Do NOT begin drafting until the outline is reviewed and evidence gaps are filled.
Phase 4: Drafting
- Write section by section following the outline
- Integrate citations as you write (never retrofit)
- Balance original analysis with supporting evidence
- Use topic sentences and clear paragraph structure
- Include concrete examples, data points, and case studies
- Write introduction last (after body is complete)
STOP — Do NOT move to review until all sections are drafted and all citations are in place.
Phase 5: Review and Fact-Check
- Verify every factual claim against its source
- Check all statistics for accuracy and context
- Ensure citations are complete and correctly formatted
- Review for logical consistency and argument strength
- Proofread for clarity, grammar, and style
- Have subject matter expert review if possible
Content Type Decision Table
| Content Type | Word Count | Research Depth | Audience | Citation Style |
|---|
| Blog article | 1,500-3,000 | Tier 2-3 sources | General | Inline links |
| Long-form article | 3,000-5,000 | Tier 1-3 sources | Informed readers | Parenthetical (APA) |
| Whitepaper | 3,000-8,000 | Tier 1-2 mandatory | Decision-makers | Footnotes or numbered |
| Case study | 1,000-2,500 | Primary + Tier 2 | Buyers | Inline attribution |
| Technical report | 5,000-15,000 | Tier 1 mandatory | Experts | IEEE or APA |
| Educational guide | 2,000-6,000 | Tier 1-3 mixed | Learners | Parenthetical |
Source Evaluation Framework (CRAAP Test)
| Criterion | Questions to Ask | Red Flags |
|---|
| Currency | When was it published? Updated? | > 5 years old for fast-moving topics |
| Relevance | Does it directly address your topic? | Tangential connection, different context |
| Authority | Who is the author? What are their credentials? | No author, no institutional affiliation |
| Accuracy | Is it supported by evidence? Peer-reviewed? | No citations, unverifiable claims |
| Purpose | Why does this exist? Inform, sell, persuade? | Strong commercial bias, advocacy without disclosure |
Source Tier System
| Tier | Source Type | Credibility | Use For |
|---|
| Tier 1 | Peer-reviewed journals, official standards | Highest | Core claims, statistics |
| Tier 2 | Industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey), textbooks | High | Market data, frameworks |
| Tier 3 | Reputable news outlets, official documentation | Good | Context, current events |
| Tier 4 | Expert blogs, conference talks, interviews | Moderate | Perspectives, opinions |
| Tier 5 | Social media, forums, Wikipedia | Low | Discovery only, never cite directly |
Citation Formats
Inline Citation Styles
# Parenthetical (APA-style)
Research shows that 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures
(Smith & Johnson, 2025).
# Narrative
According to Smith and Johnson (2025), 73% of enterprises have adopted
cloud-native architectures.
# Footnote-style (Chicago)
Research shows significant cloud adoption.[^1]
[^1]: Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2025). Cloud adoption trends.
*Journal of Cloud Computing*, 12(3), 45-62.
# Numbered (IEEE-style)
Research shows significant cloud adoption [1].
## References
[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Cloud adoption trends," *J. Cloud Computing*,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-62, 2025.
Reference Format Templates
# Journal Article
Author, A. B., & Author, C. D. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*,
Volume(Issue), Pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
# Book
Author, A. B. (Year). *Title of book* (Edition). Publisher.
# Website
Author or Organization. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name.
https://www.example.com/page
# Report
Organization. (Year). *Title of report* (Report No. XXX).
https://www.example.com/report.pdf
Content Structure Templates
Long-Form Article (2000-5000 words)
1. Hook / Opening Anecdote (100-200 words)
2. Context and Problem Statement (200-300 words)
3. Thesis / Key Insight (50-100 words)
4. Section 1: Background (400-600 words)
- Historical context
- Current state
- Key definitions
5. Section 2: Core Analysis (600-1000 words)
- Main argument with evidence
- Data and statistics
- Expert perspectives
6. Section 3: Implications (400-600 words)
- Practical applications
- Case studies
- Future outlook
7. Section 4: Counterarguments (200-400 words)
- Acknowledge limitations
- Address objections
8. Conclusion (200-300 words)
- Synthesize key findings
- Call to action or forward-looking statement
9. References
Whitepaper (3000-8000 words)
1. Executive Summary (300-500 words)
2. Introduction and Problem Statement (500-800 words)
3. Methodology (300-500 words)
4. Findings / Analysis (1500-3000 words)
- Section with data visualization
- Comparative analysis
- Case studies
5. Recommendations (500-1000 words)
6. Conclusion (300-500 words)
7. Appendices
8. References
Case Study (1000-2500 words)
1. Executive Summary (100-200 words)
2. Challenge / Problem (200-400 words)
3. Approach / Solution (300-600 words)
4. Implementation (300-500 words)
5. Results and Metrics (200-400 words)
6. Lessons Learned (200-300 words)
7. About [Company/Subject]
Writing Quality Checklist
Paragraph Level
- Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
- Paragraphs are 3-6 sentences (avoid walls of text)
- Transitions connect paragraphs logically
- Evidence follows claims immediately
Sentence Level
- Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
- Active voice preferred over passive
- Avoid jargon without definition
- Concrete language over abstract
Document Level
- Introduction establishes the "so what" clearly
- Each section advances the central argument
- No unsupported claims
- Conclusion adds value (doesn't just repeat)
- Consistent tone and reading level throughout
Fact-Checking Protocol
Verification Steps
- Primary source check: Trace every claim back to its original source
- Cross-reference: Verify key facts with at least 2 independent sources
- Statistical validation: Check that numbers are current and in context
- Quote accuracy: Verify exact wording of all direct quotes
- Date verification: Confirm all dates and timelines
- Name and title check: Verify correct spelling and current titles
Common Fact-Checking Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Example | Prevention |
|---|
| Outdated statistics | "50% of..." from a 2018 study | Always note publication year, seek recent data |
| Misattributed quotes | Einstein didn't say most "Einstein quotes" | Trace to primary source document |
| Survivorship bias | "All successful companies do X" | Look for counterexamples |
| Correlation as causation | "Countries that eat chocolate win more Nobels" | Distinguish correlation from causation |
| Out-of-context numbers | "Revenue grew 500%" (from $1 to $5) | Always provide absolute numbers and context |
Research Tools
| Tool | Purpose | Best For |
|---|
| Google Scholar | Academic paper search | Peer-reviewed research |
| Semantic Scholar | AI-powered paper discovery | Finding related work |
| arXiv | Preprints | Cutting-edge CS/ML/Physics |
| PubMed | Medical/bio research | Health and life sciences |
| Statista | Statistics and market data | Industry data points |
| Wayback Machine | Historical web pages | Verifying past claims |
| Zotero / Mendeley | Reference management | Organizing sources |
| Perplexity | AI-assisted research | Initial discovery |
Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | What To Do Instead |
|---|
| Claims without citations | Undermines credibility entirely | Cite every factual claim inline |
| Single-source assertions | One source can be wrong or biased | Cross-reference with 2+ independent sources |
| Citing secondary when primary exists | Telephone game distorts findings | Trace to and cite the original study |
| Writing introduction first | Leads to misalignment with body | Write body first, introduction last |
| Padding to reach word count | Readers detect filler immediately | Add depth or cut the target |
| Weasel words without specifics | "Some experts say" means nothing | Name the expert, cite the source |
| Retrofitting citations after drafting | Gaps in evidence go unnoticed | Integrate citations during writing |
| Ignoring counterarguments | One-sided work lacks credibility | Address objections explicitly |
| Paraphrasing too closely | Borderline plagiarism even with citation | Summarize in your own analytical voice |
| No conflict-of-interest disclosure | Erodes trust when discovered | Disclose sponsorship or affiliations upfront |
Anti-Rationalization Guards
- Do NOT skip the CRAAP test because "the source looks reputable" -- evaluate it formally.
- Do NOT use Tier 4-5 sources for core claims, regardless of convenience.
- Do NOT begin drafting without a completed outline with evidence mapped to sections.
- Do NOT publish without running the fact-checking protocol on every statistic and quote.
- Do NOT retrofit citations after writing -- integrate them as you draft.
Integration Points
| Skill | How It Connects |
|---|
seo-optimizer | Research content needs SEO-optimized titles, meta descriptions, and structured data |
content-creator | Research findings feed into marketing copy and social media content |
email-composer | Research summaries inform stakeholder update emails and executive briefings |
tech-docs-generator | Technical research follows similar source evaluation and citation practices |
llm-as-judge | Evaluate research content quality against rubric dimensions |
clean-code | Writing quality checklist parallels clean code principles for prose |
Skill Type
FLEXIBLE — Adapt research depth, citation formality, and structure to the content type and audience. Academic whitepapers demand Tier 1 sources and formal citations; blog posts may use a lighter approach. The fact-checking protocol and source evaluation framework are always recommended.
