| name | web-research-brief |
| description | Produce a decision-ready research brief from web sources — clarify the question, plan 3–5 targeted searches, triangulate every claim across at least two independent sources, separate fact from vendor marketing, cite every claim with its URL, and close with a confidence-rated summary plus open questions. Use it whenever the user asks you to research, compare, evaluate, or "find out about" something using the web. |
Web research brief
Produce a brief someone can act on, not a pile of links. Follow the steps in
order; do not start searching before step 2 is written down.
Step 1 — pin the question
Restate the research question in one sentence, including the decision it
supports (e.g. "Should we adopt X for Y? — deciding by "). If the
request is ambiguous on scope, timeframe, budget, or region, ask the user
before searching; otherwise state the assumptions you are making and proceed.
Step 2 — plan 3–5 searches
Write the plan before executing it: 3–5 distinct queries that attack the
question from different angles — e.g. official docs/specs, independent
benchmarks or reviews, pricing pages, community experience (issues, forums),
and known failure modes ("X problems", "X vs Y migration"). One query per
angle; refine rather than multiply.
Step 3 — gather and triangulate
- Execute the searches; open the most authoritative result per angle first
(primary source > independent analysis > aggregator > vendor blog).
- Every load-bearing claim needs ≥2 independent sources. Two pages citing
the same press release are one source. If you can find only one, keep the
claim but mark it "single-source".
- Record the URL and publication date for everything you keep. Prefer sources
from the last 12–18 months for anything fast-moving; flag older ones.
- Note conflicts explicitly — do not silently pick the number you like.
Step 4 — separate fact from marketing
Label each finding as one of:
- Fact — verifiable, from documentation, changelogs, benchmarks you can
inspect, or multiple independent reports.
- Vendor claim — from the seller's own materials and not independently
confirmed. Report it as "vendor states…", never as established fact.
- Opinion/anecdote — individual experience; useful signal, weak evidence.
Step 5 — write the brief
Structure the output exactly as:
- Question — one line, plus assumptions made.
- Bottom line — the answer/recommendation in 2–3 sentences, up front.
- Findings — grouped by theme; each claim followed by its source URL(s)
inline. Facts first, vendor claims clearly labeled.
- Conflicts & caveats — where sources disagreed, and which you weighted
and why.
- Confidence — High / Medium / Low for the bottom line, with one sentence
on why (source quality, recency, coverage gaps).
- Open questions — what you could not verify and what search or expert
would resolve each.
Keep the whole brief under about a page unless asked for depth; the appendix
of raw links belongs at the end, not inline.
