research

# Research Systematic investigation → evidence-based analysis → authoritative recommendations. ## Steps 1. Define scope and evaluation criteria 2. Discover sources using MCP tools (context7, octocode, firecrawl) 3. Gather information with multi-source approach 4. Load the `outfitter:report-findings` skill for synthesis 5. Compile report with confidence levels and citations <when_to_use> - Technology evaluation and comparison - Documentation discovery and troubleshooting - Best practices and industry standards research - Implementation guidance with authoritative sources NOT for: quick lookups, well-known patterns, time-critical debugging without investigation stage </when_to_use> <stages> Load the **maintain-tasks** skill for stage tracking. Stages advance only, never regress. | Stage | Trigger | activeForm | |-------|---------|------------| | Analyze Request | Session start | "Analyzing research request" | | Discover Sources | Criteria defined | "Discovering sources" | | Gather Information | Sources identified | "Gathering information" | | Synthesize Findings | Information gathered | "Synthesizing findings" | | Compile Report | Synthesis complete | "Compiling report" | Workflow: - Start: Create "Analyze Request" as `in_progress` - Transition: Mark current `completed`, add next `in_progress` - Simple queries: Skip directly to "Gather Information" if unambiguous - Gaps during synthesis: Add new "Gather Information" task - Early termination: Skip to "Compile Report" with caveats </stages> <methodology> Five-stage systematic approach: **1. Question Stage** — Define scope - Decision to be made? - Evaluation parameters? (performance, maintainability, security, adoption) - Constraints? (timeline, expertise, infrastructure) **2. Discovery Stage** — Multi-source retrieval | Use Case | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | |----------|---------|-----------|----------| | Official docs | context7 | octocode | firecrawl | | Troubleshooting | octocode issues | firecrawl community | context7 guides | | Code examples | octocode repos | firecrawl tutorials | context7 examples | | Technology eval | Parallel all | Cross-reference | Validate | **3. Evaluation Stage** — Analyze against criteria | Criterion | Metrics | |-----------|---------| | Performance | Benchmarks, latency, throughput, memory | | Maintainability | Code complexity, docs quality, community activity | | Security | CVEs, audits, compliance | | Adoption | Downloads, production usage, industry patterns | **4. Comparison Stage** — Systematic tradeoff analysis For each option: Strengths → Weaknesses → Best fit → Deal breakers **5. Recommendation Stage** — Clear guidance with rationale Primary recommendation → Alternatives → Implementation steps → Limitations </methodology> <tools> Three MCP servers for multi-source research: | Tool | Best For | Key Functions | |------|----------|---------------| | **context7** | Official docs, API refs | `resolve-library-id`, `get-library-docs` | | **octocode** | Code examples, issues | `packageSearch`, `githubSearchCode`, `githubSearchIssues` | | **firecrawl** | Tutorials, benchmarks | `search`, `scrape`, `map` | Execution patterns: - **Parallel**: Run independent queries simultaneously for speed - **Fallback**: context7 → octocode → firecrawl if primary fails - **Progressive**: Start broad, narrow based on findings See [tool-selection.md](references/tool-selection.md) for detailed usage. </tools> <discovery_patterns> Common research workflows: | Scenario | Approach | |----------|----------| | **Library Installation** | Package search → Official docs → Installation guide | | **Error Resolution** | Parse error → Search issues → Official troubleshooting → Community solutions | | **API Exploration** | Documentation ID → API reference → Real usage examples | | **Technology Comparison** | Parallel all sources → Cross-reference → Build matrix → Recommend | See [discovery-patterns.md](references/discovery-patterns.md) for detailed workflows. </discovery_patterns> <findings_format> Two output modes: **Evaluation Mode** (recommendations): ``` Finding: { assertion } Source: { authoritative source with link } Confidence: High/Medium/Low — { rationale } ``` **Discovery Mode** (gathering): ``` Found: { what was discovered } Source: { where from with link } Notes: { context or caveats } ``` </findings_format> <response_structure> ```markdown ## Research Summary Brief overview — what investigated, sources consulted. ## Options Discovered 1. **Option A** — description 2. **Option B** — description ## Comparison Matrix | Criterion | Option A | Option B | |-----------|----------|----------| ## Recommendation ### Primary: [Option Name] **Rationale**: reasoning + evidence **Confidence**: level + explanation ### Alternatives When to choose differently. ## Implementation Guidance Next steps, common pitfalls, validation. ## Sources - Official, benchmarks, case studies, community ``` </response_structure> <quality> **Always include**: - Direct citations with links - Confidence levels and limitations - Context about when recommendations may not apply **Always validate**: - Version is latest stable - Documentation matches user context - Critical info cross-referenced - Code examples complete and runnable **Proactively flag**: - Deprecated approaches with modern alternatives - Missing prerequisites - Common pitfalls and gotchas - Related tools in ecosystem </quality> <rules> ALWAYS: - Create "Analyze Request" todo at session start - One stage `in_progress` at a time - Use multi-source approach (context7, octocode, firecrawl) - Provide direct citations with links - Cross-reference critical information - Include confidence levels and limitations NEVER: - Skip "Analyze Request" stage without defining scope - Single-source when multi-source available - Deliver recommendations without citations - Include deprecated approaches without flagging - Omit limitations and edge cases </rules> <references> - [source-hierarchy.md](references/source-hierarchy.md) — authority evaluation details - [tool-selection.md](references/tool-selection.md) — MCP server decision matrix - [discovery-patterns.md](references/discovery-patterns.md) — detailed research workflows **Research vs Report-Findings**: - This skill (`research`) covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools - `report-findings` skill covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation Use `research` for technology evaluation, documentation discovery, and best practices research. Load `report-findings` during synthesis stage for source authority assessment and confidence calibration. </references>