research

name

research

description

General-purpose research skill for this team. Invoke with /research. Reads memory/project/INDEX.md to learn the active project and grounds in the active vision. Complements /business-research (which covers competitive analysis and customer journeys) by handling technical, regulatory, UX pattern, and open-ended topic research. Always produces an unopinionated research.md artifact saved to the active session folder. Use when the team needs depth on a topic that is not a competitor landscape or customer journey map.

Research

Produces an unopinionated research.md artifact on any topic relevant to the active project.

Memory Read Contract

Required reads on entry:

1. memory/project/INDEX.md — canonical pointers + session lifecycle.
2. memory/task/state.md — current phase, active session, blockers.
3. The active vision.md (resolved from INDEX). If absent, stop and ask the user whether to proceed without grounding.

Rules:

• Always resolve artifact paths through INDEX. Do not fuzzy-find via find.
• If INDEX is missing or points to a missing file, stop and tell the user to run /reindex. Do not silently fall back to globbing.
• The active session is whichever session has status: active in INDEX. Never use date-affinity heuristics.

Scope vs /business-research

Use /research for	Use /business-research for
Technical approaches (e.g., how an integration works)	Competitor feature/pricing landscape
Regulatory / compliance topics	Customer journey mapping
UX patterns and design precedents	Positioning gaps
Data sources	Sub-segment targeting
Open-ended exploratory topics	Market sizing

If the request overlaps with competitor or customer-journey territory, suggest /business-research instead.

---

Flow

RESOLVE VISION → MODE DETECTION → INTERVIEW → PARALLEL RESEARCH AGENTS → SYNTHESIS → SAVE

---

Step 1: Resolve vision

Resolve the active session's vision.md from INDEX and read it silently before proceeding. Use it to calibrate research scope.

---

Step 2: Mode detection

Detect the research mode from the invocation prompt:

• technical — APIs, integrations, algorithms, data sources, architecture patterns
• regulatory — laws, compliance requirements, disclosure rules
• ux-patterns — precedents from analogous products, interaction models, design research
• exploratory — open-ended topic not fitting the above

If the mode is absent or ambiguous, ask one question: "What specifically do you want to understand — technical options, regulations, UX patterns, or something else?"

---

Step 3: Interview

Keep to 2–3 questions targeted at narrowing scope. Generic examples by mode:

technical:

1. Which specific integration or capability are you evaluating?
2. Are there known constraints (cost, latency, data privacy) to factor in?

regulatory:

1. Which activity or product category is in scope?
2. Which jurisdiction?

ux-patterns:

1. Which user flow or moment are you trying to improve?
2. Any analogous products (not direct competitors) you'd like included?

exploratory:

1. What question are you trying to answer?
2. What would make this research actionable for the team?

Wait for answers before spawning agents.

---

Step 4: Parallel research agents

Spawn all research agents in the same turn so they run concurrently. Use web-search-researcher as the subagent type.

For each agent, include:

• The user's interview answers
• Product context quoted directly from the active vision.md
• The specific research question for that agent (not a generic brief)

Standard agent set by mode:

Mode	Agent 1	Agent 2	Agent 3
technical	Deep-dive on primary integration/approach	Alternative approaches and trade-offs	Failure modes and known limitations
regulatory	Federal/national rules and requirements	Sub-jurisdictional variations	Enforcement history / edge cases
ux-patterns	Pattern examples from analogous products	User behavior research / studies	Anti-patterns and failure cases
exploratory	Primary topic depth	Adjacent context	Contrarian / minority view

Adjust agent briefs based on the user's specific question — the table is a starting point, not a rigid template.

---

Step 5: Synthesize

Combine agent findings into a single research.md. Strict rules:

• Facts only. No recommendations, no opinions, no "you should."
• Cite sources. Every non-obvious claim traces to a URL or named publication.
• Surface patterns. Three sources noting the same thing is a pattern — name it.
• Declare gaps. If something couldn't be confirmed, say so explicitly.

---

Step 6: Memory Write Transaction

Write order, no skipping:

1. Save research.md inside the active session folder resolved from INDEX: <active-session-folder>/research.md. If a research.md already exists for the active session, propose the new file as research-<scope-slug>.md rather than overwriting silently.
2. Verify the file exists and is non-empty.
3. Update memory/project/INDEX.md — bump the research row in canonical artifacts. Refresh Canonical artifact set complete and Last reindex as appropriate.
4. Replace memory/task/state.md wholesale with the new snapshot (phase = post-research, next action = /domain).
5. Run the Decision Gate. Append qualifying entries to memory/project/decisions.md.
6. Output any glossary candidates as a ## Glossary Proposals section in the final response. Do not edit glossary.md.

If any step after step 1 fails or is skipped, the final response must say:

Memory drift possible. Run /reindex to reconcile.

---

Step 7: Decision candidates

End the session with this block:

Decision candidates from this session:
1. [candidate] — append: yes/no — reason
2. [candidate] — append: yes/no — reason

Research output (facts, sources) is not a decision. A candidate qualifies only when the team chose to act on what the research surfaced — e.g., "we will integrate via Provider X, not Y" — and that choice forecloses an alternative.

---

research.md template

# Research: [Topic]

_Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Mode: [technical | regulatory | ux-patterns | exploratory]_
_Grounded in: [relative path to vision.md from INDEX]_

---

## Context & Scope

[What was researched, why, and any constraints on scope.]

## [Primary Section]

[Main findings on the topic.]

## [Secondary Section]

[Supporting findings, alternatives, or adjacent context.]

## [Additional Section if a clear theme emerged]

## Gaps & Unconfirmed Claims

[Things that surfaced but couldn't be verified — worth a follow-up.]

## Sources

[URL or publication name for each key claim.]