| name | research |
| description | Use when exploring unfamiliar codebases, investigating bugs, checking external documentation, or learning unfamiliar technology before acting |
Research
Investigate at the shallowest depth that answers safely, then stop: Observe → Explore → Verify.
- Observe — read the cheapest orienting source first (CLAUDE.md, README, the one named file). Name what you don't yet know.
- Explore — answer the open questions. Do it directly only when it's shallow; otherwise delegate (below).
- Verify — close the loop once: run it, trace the call, or cross-check a second source before you act on the finding.
Delegate Wide Research to a Subagent
Orient first (the one cheap read), then decide — orientation often shrinks a "wide" question to a one-file answer, so don't delegate before you've looked.
Once oriented, if what's still open would read several files or sources — code, web, or both — delegate to Agent: subagent_type="me:researcher". Its context absorbs the dead ends; you get only the summary, keeping the main context clean.
Do it yourself only when delegation overhead isn't worth it:
| What's left open | Do |
|---|
| One named file / known symbol | Direct Read / grep / LSP — you can cite file:line in a step or two |
| Behavior claim, runnable locally | Reproduce with a command or test yourself |
| Wide/unknown code, web docs, or a mix | Delegate to me:researcher |
Dispatch independent research in one message — several me:researcher calls (or a direct read alongside one) run concurrently. Only go sequential when a call needs the previous result. Match the agent count to the question's real branches — one subagent per genuinely independent sub-question, not per file. Each spins up a fresh context, so over-splitting burns tokens for no extra signal. Give each subagent one objective and the exact fields you want back.
Evidence Standards
- Match evidence depth to risk; quick lookups need one cited source.
- Bug causes, recommendations, comparisons, and external facts want 2-3 independent signals — static config and runtime artifact count as two; two reads of the same file do not.
- Behavior claims need observed output, not code reading alone.
- Test the premise, not just the question — the report ("X is broken") may itself be false; check the actual state.
- Negative evidence is evidence: say where you searched and what was absent.
Stop When
The next search won't change your decision. You have a citable answer at the depth the risk demands. Beyond that, more reading is confirmation, not signal.
Red Flags — STOP
- 3-source research for a file-location question.
- Reading file after file in the main context when
me:researcher should absorb that work.
- Dispatching subagents one per message when several are independent.
- Fanning out more subagents than the question has independent branches — context spin-up is the cost, not the search.
- Claiming behavior from code when a runnable check exists.
- Reading code for a live URL/UI bug before inspecting the running page (
me:browse).
- Trusting outdated or unsourced web content.
