| name | Deep Research |
| description | Structured research workflow for answering complex questions, evaluating technologies, and cross-checking information across multiple sources. Turns curiosity into verified, actionable intelligence.
|
| version | 1.0.0 |
| triggers | ["user asks a complex or unfamiliar question","agent needs to evaluate technology alternatives","research is required before making architectural decisions","user wants information cross-checked across sources"] |
🔬 Deep Research — From Question to Verified Answer
"A question without research is an opinion. Research without cross-checking is propaganda."
This skill transforms questions, ideas, and uncertainties into verified,
evidence-tagged intelligence through a structured research pipeline.
Research Pipeline
flowchart TD
INPUT["Question / Idea /\nUncertainty"] --> P1["① FRAME\nDefine scope & criteria"]
P1 --> P2["② DIVERGE\nCast wide net"]
P2 --> P3["③ CROSS-CHECK\nVerify across sources"]
P3 --> P4["④ EVALUATE\nScore & rank findings"]
P4 --> P5["⑤ SYNTHESIZE\nRecap & recommend"]
P5 --> OUTPUT["Verified answer\nwith evidence chain"]
P3 -->|"Contradiction\nfound"| P2
Phase ①: FRAME — Define the Research Scope
Before searching anything, define what you're looking for and how you'll judge it.
Scope Template
**Question:** {The precise question to answer}
**Type:** comparison | evaluation | exploration | fact-check
**Criteria:** {What makes an answer good?}
**Constraints:** {Time, language, recency, domain}
**Anti-Goals:** {What we're NOT trying to learn}
Evaluation Criteria (pick relevant ones)
| Criterion | Description | Weight |
|---|
| Recency | When was this published/updated? | 🔴 High |
| Authority | Who published it? (official docs > blog > forum) | 🔴 High |
| Relevance | Does it answer the actual question? | 🔴 High |
| Adoption | How widely used/starred/downloaded? | 🟡 Medium |
| Consensus | Do multiple independent sources agree? | 🟡 Medium |
| Depth | Surface overview vs deep technical detail? | 🟢 Low |
Do Not Do
- Start searching before defining what you're looking for
- Search with vague queries ("best framework 2024")
- Set no criteria — you'll drown in results without a filter
Phase ②: DIVERGE — Cast a Wide Net
Search broadly across multiple source categories:
Source Categories
| Category | Sources | Trust Level |
|---|
| Official | Docs, specs, RFCs, GitHub repos | 🟢 High |
| Academic | Papers, conferences, research labs | 🟢 High |
| Industry | Tech blogs (major cos), benchmark reports | 🟡 Medium |
| Community | Stack Overflow, Reddit, HN, Discord | 🟠 Low-Med |
| Individual | Personal blogs, tutorials, tweets | 🔴 Low |
Search Strategy
flowchart TD
QUERY["Research question"] --> S1["Search 1:\nOfficial docs"]
QUERY --> S2["Search 2:\nGitHub repos\n(stars, activity)"]
QUERY --> S3["Search 3:\nTech blogs\n(recent, authoritative)"]
QUERY --> S4["Search 4:\nCommunity discussions\n(real-world experience)"]
S1 --> POOL["Source pool\n(≥ 5 sources)"]
S2 --> POOL
S3 --> POOL
S4 --> POOL
For Each Source, Record
| Field | Description |
|---|
| URL | The source link |
| Title | Article/doc title |
| Author/Org | Who published it |
| Date | When published/updated |
| Category | Official/Academic/Industry/Community/Individual |
| Key Claims | What does this source say? (summarize in ≤ 3 points) |
Do Not Do
- Rely on a single source — minimum 5 sources for any research
- Search only one category — always include at least 2 categories
- Ignore publication date — a 2020 article about 2024 tech is dangerously outdated
- Accept the first result — the best answer is rarely the first one
Phase ③: CROSS-CHECK — Verify Across Sources
The most critical phase. No claim is accepted until verified by ≥ 2 independent sources.
Cross-Check Matrix
| Claim | Source A | Source B | Source C | Verdict |
|---|
| {Claim 1} | ✅ Confirms | ✅ Confirms | — | Verified |
| {Claim 2} | ✅ Confirms | ❌ Contradicts | ✅ Confirms | Disputed — investigate |
| {Claim 3} | ✅ Confirms | — | — | Unverified — needs more sources |
Contradiction Resolution
flowchart TD
CONTRA["Sources disagree"] --> Q1{"Which source is\nmore authoritative?"}
Q1 -->|"Official docs"| OFFICIAL["Trust official\nTag: [CODE]"]
Q1 -->|"Both equal"| Q2{"Which is\nmore recent?"}
Q2 -->|"Source A newer"| RECENT["Trust recent\nTag: [INFER]"]
Q2 -->|"Same date"| Q3{"Can you\ntest it?"}
Q3 -->|"Yes"| TEST["Run experiment\nTag: [RUNTIME]"]
Q3 -->|"No"| FLAG["Flag as disputed\nTag: [HYPO]"]
Do Not Do
- Accept a claim from a single source as fact
- Ignore contradictions — they are the most valuable signals
- Trust a blog post over official documentation
- Skip date verification — tech information has a half-life
Phase ④: EVALUATE — Score & Rank
Score each finding against the criteria defined in Phase ①.
Scoring Template
| Finding | Recency | Authority | Relevance | Adoption | Consensus | Total |
|---|
| {Finding A} | 5/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 21/25 |
| {Finding B} | 3/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 22/25 |
| {Finding C} | 2/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 10/25 |
Evidence Level Assignment
| Score Range | Evidence Level | Meaning |
|---|
| 20-25 | [RUNTIME] or [CODE] | Strong, verified evidence |
| 15-19 | [INFER] | Reasonable confidence, pattern-based |
| 10-14 | [HYPO] | Hypothesis, needs more verification |
| < 10 | Drop | Not trustworthy enough to include |
Do Not Do
- Include low-score findings without flagging their evidence level
- Let personal preference override scoring data
- Skip scoring because "the answer is obvious"
Phase ⑤: SYNTHESIZE — Recap & Recommend
Produce a structured research report.
Output Template
## Research Report: {Question}
### Executive Summary
{2-3 sentences answering the original question}
### Methodology
- Sources consulted: {N}
- Source categories: {list}
- Cross-checks performed: {N}
### Key Findings
| # | Finding | Evidence | Sources |
|:---|:---|:---:|:---|
| 1 | {finding} | [RUNTIME] | {source links} |
| 2 | {finding} | [INFER] | {source links} |
### Contradictions & Disputes
{Any unresolved disagreements between sources}
### Recommendation
{What the agent recommends, with reasoning}
### Confidence Level
{HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — justified by evidence quality}
### Source Registry
| # | Source | Category | Date | Trust |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---:|
| 1 | {URL} | Official | 2024-01 | 🟢 |
| 2 | {URL} | Community | 2023-11 | 🟠 |
Do Not Do
- Present findings without citing sources
- Give a recommendation without explaining the reasoning
- Hide low confidence behind assertive language
- Skip the contradictions section — honesty builds trust
- Present research as exhaustive when time-boxed — state limitations
Quick Reference
┌────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔬 Deep Research Pipeline │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ① FRAME — Define question │
│ ② DIVERGE — ≥5 sources, ≥2 cats │
│ ③ CROSS — ≥2 sources per claim│
│ ④ EVALUATE — Score & evidence tag │
│ ⑤ SYNTH — Report + recommend │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Trust: Docs > Papers > Blogs │
│ Min sources: 5 │
│ Cross-check: 2+ per claim │
│ Evidence: [CODE] [RUNTIME] │
│ [INFER] [HYPO] │
└────────────────────────────────────┘
