investigating

name	investigating
description	Use when the user asks to research or investigate a question, claim, or topic in depth. Comprehensive investigation with current information, every claim traceable to a source.
model	sonnet

Investigating

Investigate thoroughly. Every claim must be traceable to a source.

Investigation Flow

1. Scope. What exactly are we investigating? Restate in one sentence.
2. Gather. Collect evidence from all relevant sources:
   • Code: codebase-memory-mcp graph tools FIRST (search_graph to find symbols, trace_path for call chains, get_code_snippet for source, get_architecture for structure; run index_repository if the project is not indexed) — fall back to grep/read for text, configs, and non-code files; check git history
   • External: web search, documentation, API references
   • Runtime: logs, error messages, test output
3. Verify. Cross-check findings. If two sources conflict, investigate the conflict.
4. Synthesize. Connect findings into a coherent picture. Identify what is confirmed, what is likely, and what is unknown.
5. Report. Present findings structured as:

## Findings

### Confirmed
[Evidence-backed conclusions]

### Likely (needs verification)
[Reasonable inferences with stated assumptions]

### Unknown
[What we could not determine and why]

### Sources
[Where each finding came from]

Scout Pattern (Optional, for Unfamiliar Territory)

When the question is in code or systems you have not touched, send a scout agent before doing the real investigation.

How:

1. Launch one Agent (Explore or general-purpose) with a deliberately loose prompt — "explore X, report what you found, what's confusing, where you'd dig next." Subagents do NOT receive the session code-discovery reminder, so the prompt MUST include: "Use codebase-memory-mcp tools first (search_graph, trace_path, get_code_snippet, search_code) before grep/file-read."
2. Discard the scout's conclusions. They are not the answer.
3. Read the scout's findings for: which files matter, which terms appear, where the dead ends are.
4. Use that intel to write a precise prompt for the real investigation (Step 1 below).

Why this beats jumping straight in: the scout pays the discovery cost in parallel with whatever else you're doing, and the precise prompt that follows hits its target on the first try instead of meandering.

Skip the scout when: the territory is familiar, the question is narrow (one file, one symbol), or the answer is in obvious places (git log, a known doc).

Principles

• Comprehensive over fast. Check all relevant sources before concluding.
• Logic chain visible. Show how you got from evidence to conclusion.
• Current information. Use web search and documentation tools to verify — do not rely solely on training data.
• Insufficient evidence is itself a finding. Report it as "insufficient evidence", never dressed up as "probably X".
• Distinguish fact from inference. Label which is which.