conducting-research

name	conducting-research
description	Conducts research. Use when asked to research, investigate, explore, look into a topic, compare options, learn about an unfamiliar domain, or understand current state.

Conducting Research

Guide systematic research: frame the question, find and judge sources, gather and synthesise, stop at the right point, present findings with confidence levels. This is process guidance, not domain expertise — findings are only as good as the sources available.

Skip when a single lookup or a straightforward answer from existing knowledge suffices.

Phase 1 — Define and frame

Before searching, establish (ask the user if unclear):

• Question — write it explicitly; break complex questions into 3–7 answerable sub-questions; note assumptions needing validation
• Scope — what's in and out, depth (overview vs deep dive), time constraints
• Purpose — what decision or action does this inform? This sets depth and output format
• Success criteria — what would make the research "complete enough"?

Phase 2 — Identify and evaluate sources

Aim for at least 3 high-quality sources before concluding anything.

Source hierarchy — start at the top, expand downward as needed:

1. Primary — official documentation, research papers, primary data, project repositories and changelogs
2. Secondary — established books and guides, expert blog posts (verify expertise), reputable analysis sites
3. Community — Stack Overflow, Reddit/HN discussions, GitHub issues, conference talks — useful but verify

Judge each source on: authority (who wrote it; official or third-party), recency (still current? prioritise recent sources in fast-moving fields), accuracy (cites reliable sources; key claims verifiable elsewhere), bias (conflicts of interest; promotion disguised as neutral content), relevance (addresses the question in a context like yours).

Deprioritise sources with: no author attribution, promotional language, outdated information, no citations, claims conflicting with multiple reliable sources, or strong opinion without evidence.

By research type: technology evaluation — official docs first, then neutral benchmarks and production experience reports; concept understanding — authoritative introductions, cross-referencing multiple explanations; current events — sources from the last 6–12 months, verified across several; troubleshooting — official docs, then GitHub issues and dated Stack Overflow answers.

Phase 3 — Gather

Default to hybrid exploration: breadth-first to map the territory and identify 2–4 key areas, then depth-first on each, returning to breadth if gaps appear. Keep structured notes as you go: findings with their sources, open questions, and contradictions between sources.

Phase 4 — Synthesise and validate

Build a mental model: core concepts, how they connect, where sources agree and where they debate. Before concluding:

• Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources; independently verify anything surprising
• Challenge your starting assumptions; consider alternative interpretations
• Check for gaps: what was skipped, and what would an expert know that you don't?

Phase 5 — Decide when to stop

Stop when the original question has a clear answer, key claims are verified by multiple reliable sources, understanding suffices for the stated purpose, and further searching shows diminishing returns.

Keep going when core concepts remain confusing, contradictions are unresolved, key claims rest on low-quality sources, or critical assumptions are untested.

If time runs out first: state what wasn't covered, separate what you know / think / don't know, and flag where the gaps carry risk.

Phase 6 — Present

Adapt format to purpose — a quick investigation may need only a summary. For substantial research include: executive summary (core answer plus key takeaways), scope and constraints, findings organised by theme or sub-question with evidence, source quality and confidence levels, implications or recommendation, open questions. Cite sources for quotes and key claims: [claim] (Source: name, URL).

Self-correction

Watch for these while working:

• Superficial understanding — collecting facts without a model; test by explaining findings in your own words
• Lost in details — periodically return to the research question and ask "does this help answer it?"
• Confirmation bias — actively seek disconfirming evidence; ask "what would prove me wrong?"
• Missing context — start with overview material before diving deep
• Premature conclusion — never conclude from a single source