| name | in-depth-research |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | G-HunterAi |
| license | MIT |
| description | Conduct exhaustive multi-source investigation with methodology tracking, source evaluation, and iterative depth. |
| tags | ["research","analysis","investigation","methodology","sources","synthesis"] |
| platforms | ["all"] |
| category | research |
| emoji | 🔬 |
In-Depth Research
Conduct exhaustive multi-source investigation with systematic methodology, source evaluation, and iterative depth. Move beyond surface-level searches to thorough exploration that answers complex questions with documented evidence.
When to Use
Load this skill when:
- Complex questions requiring investigation across multiple sources
- Decision-critical research: The answer will drive important decisions
- Topic unfamiliar to you: Need to build deep understanding from scratch
- Contradictions exist: Sources disagree and you need to reconcile them
- Credibility matters: Must distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones
- Methodology important: Need to document your process and reasoning
- Trend research: Understanding evolution of a topic over time
- Market/competitive analysis: Evaluating options systematically
Examples:
- "Should we adopt this technology? Research pros, cons, adoption rates, costs."
- "What's the current state of X field? Who are key players? What's the trajectory?"
- "Is this claim true? What does reliable research say?"
- "How do these approaches compare? What are tradeoffs?"
When NOT to Use
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Quick facts: Simple factual questions (→ just search)
- Synthesizing existing docs: Combining internal documents (→ use Synthesize)
- Ongoing monitoring: Continuous tracking of changes (→ use Digest/automation)
- Surface-level answers: "Here's what Wikipedia says" (→ standard search sufficient)
Prerequisites
- Web search access (Google, Bing, or similar)
- Web fetch capability (ability to retrieve full articles)
- Time budget (research takes 30 min to hours depending on depth)
Protocol
Scope → Search → Evaluate → Deepen → Synthesize → Document → Deliver
1. Scope
Before starting any search, clarify:
- What exactly is the question? (Reframe vague questions into specific, answerable queries)
- What depth is needed? (Quick/Standard/Thorough/Exhaustive)
- What decision does this enable? (Understand the stakes)
- Time/effort budget? (Realistic time allocation)
2. Search
Multi-vector search approach:
- Start broad: General search engines, Wikipedia, overview articles to map territory
- Go specific: Domain-specific databases, academic sources, industry reports
- Follow trails: Citation checking, author searches, reverse searches for who cites papers
- Alternative vectors: Forums (Reddit, HN), expert blogs, social media threads, news archives
Track everything: Every source consulted, every query used. Nothing unattributed.
3. Evaluate
For each significant source, assess:
| Factor | Check |
|---|
| Authority | Who wrote it? Credentials? Institutional backing? |
| Currency | When published? Still accurate? |
| Evidence | Claims supported by data? Methodology shown? |
| Purpose | Inform? Persuade? Sell? Academic? |
| Bias | Funding sources? Conflicts of interest? |
| Corroboration | Do independent sources confirm? |
Flag low-credibility sources. Weight findings accordingly.
4. Deepen
Research is iterative. Initial findings reveal new questions:
- Follow promising threads that emerge
- Fill identified gaps
- Chase contradictions to source
- Stop when: answer is clear, returns diminish, or budget exhausted
Document decision to stop and why.
5. Synthesize
Merge findings:
- Reconcile contradictions explicitly
- Weight findings by source quality
- Note confidence levels
- Identify remaining unknowns
- Highlight areas of consensus vs. disagreement
6. Document
Research trail matters for credibility:
- Sources consulted (with links, dates accessed)
- Search queries and strategies used
- Why certain sources were weighted higher
- What was NOT found (gaps and limitations)
- When research was stopped and why
7. Deliver
Format per user needs (see references/output-formats.md):
- Executive: BLUF + key findings + confidence
- Standard: Full findings with clear sourcing
- Academic: Complete methodology + full citations
- Working doc: All findings for further iteration
Output Format (Default)
🔬 DEEP RESEARCH: [Topic]
⚡ ANSWER
[Direct answer to the question — 2-3 sentences]
📊 CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low]
[Why this confidence level]
🔍 KEY FINDINGS
• [Finding 1] — [source credibility: Tier X]
• [Finding 2] — [source credibility: Tier X]
• [Finding 3] — [source credibility: Tier X]
⚠️ CAVEATS
• [Important limitation or uncertainty]
🕳️ GAPS
• [What couldn't be determined]
📚 SOURCES ([count])
[Numbered list with credibility notes]
🔎 METHODOLOGY
[Brief: what was searched, how sources were evaluated]
Depth Levels
Choose depth based on stakes:
| Level | Time | Sources | When |
|---|
| Quick | 5-10 min | 3-5 | Simple factual questions |
| Standard | 30-60 min | 8-15 | Most research requests |
| Thorough | 2-4 hours | 20-30 | Important decisions |
| Exhaustive | Days | 50+ | Critical, high-stakes decisions |
Confirm depth with user before starting. Adjust if findings warrant deeper investigation.
Example Research Prompts
Quick Research
"What are the main benefits and drawbacks of using TypeScript in a startup?"
- Search: StackOverflow, dev blogs, GitHub discussions
- Time: 20-30 minutes
- Sources: 5-8
Standard Research
"What's the current landscape of AI coding assistants? Compare capabilities, pricing, and adoption."
- Search: Industry reports, benchmarks, user reviews, pricing pages
- Time: 45-90 minutes
- Sources: 10-20
Thorough Research
"Should we migrate from React to Vue? Systematic comparison of community, ecosystem, hiring difficulty, performance."
- Search: Framework docs, benchmarks, industry surveys, job market, GitHub metrics
- Time: 3-4 hours
- Sources: 25-40
Source Hierarchy Reference
See references/sources.md for detailed source evaluation framework.
Quick reference:
- Tier 1 (highest): Primary research, official data, peer-reviewed studies
- Tier 2 (high): Expert analysis, systematic reviews, quality journalism
- Tier 3 (medium): Secondary sources, educational content, trade journals
- Tier 4 (lower): General news, Wikipedia, aggregators
- Tier 5 (lowest): Forums, blogs, user content (useful for practitioner knowledge)
Search Strategy Reference
See references/methodology.md for detailed techniques:
- Boolean operators and advanced search
- Domain-specific databases
- Citation following (forward and backward)
- Author tracking
- Forum mining (Reddit, HN, forums)
- Detecting when to stop research
Works Well With
- web-scraper: Extract data from websites you discover
- data-analysis: Analyze research data and statistics
- news-aggregator-skill: Find and track relevant news sources
- workflow-orchestrator: Schedule recurring research on topics
Common Research Scenarios
Evaluating a Technology
- Search for official documentation and benchmarks
- Find independent benchmarks and comparisons
- Check adoption rates (GitHub stars, StackOverflow mentions, job postings)
- Read case studies from companies using it
- Find user reviews and community sentiment
- Evaluate documentation quality and learning curve
Market Research
- Find industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey, analyst firms)
- Check government statistics for market size
- Identify major players (SEC filings, company websites)
- Research pricing and business models
- Look for growth trends (news, analyst predictions)
- Find customer reviews and satisfaction metrics
Academic/Historical Research
- Use Google Scholar for peer-reviewed papers
- Check citation counts (who cited this work?)
- Find primary sources that papers reference
- Look for systematic reviews or meta-analyses
- Check for subsequent research that builds on or contradicts findings
- Find author's other work for context
Competitive Analysis
- Gather competitor info (public records, websites, pricing)
- Find user reviews and comparisons
- Check job postings (hiring strategy, locations)
- Review funding/investment news
- Analyze their content and positioning
- Find third-party analyst reports
Confidence Assessment
How to determine confidence level:
- High: Multiple independent Tier 1-2 sources agree, no significant contradictions
- Medium: Mix of Tier 2-3 sources with some agreement, minor contradictions explained
- Low: Limited sources (Tier 3-5), significant disagreement, key unknowns remain
- Cannot determine: Insufficient sources or contradictory findings without resolution
Always state WHY you assessed confidence at a particular level.
Error Handling
| Issue | Cause | Solution |
|---|
| Paywalled source blocks access | Premium content behind subscription | Note as "paywall-blocked", find alternative sources, cite what's accessible |
| Source returns 404/timeout | Dead link or server down | Use Wayback Machine or alternative archives; mark source as unreachable with date |
| Contradictory sources | Two credible sources disagree | Present both positions, note the disagreement, assess which has stronger evidence |
| No sources found for claim | Obscure or novel topic | Explicitly state "no corroborating sources found" with confidence: Low |
| Source language barrier | Key source in non-English language | Use translation tools, note "machine-translated" in citation |
Red Flags to Investigate
Be suspicious when:
- Only one source makes a claim (find corroborating sources)
- Source has obvious financial interest (note bias)
- No methodology or data shown (question credibility)
- Extraordinary claims, ordinary evidence (unlikely)
- Consensus claimed but not demonstrated (verify claim)
- Source quotes another source without checking original (follow chains)
References: see references/ directory for methodology, sources, and output formats
