web-research

name	web-research
description	A method for multi-step web research that produces a cross-checked, cited answer instead of a single-search guess. Use for questions needing current, authoritative, or contested information.
metadata	{"version":"1.0"}

Web research

Use this when a question needs current, authoritative, or contested information — not for things already known or in local context. The goal is a synthesized answer backed by independent, cited sources, not the first search result.

Method

1. Frame the question. Write down exactly what's being asked and what a complete answer must include. If it's broad or ambiguous, decompose it into sub-questions and resolve each — don't research a vague blob.

2. Plan sources before searching. For each sub-question, note what kind of source would actually settle it (primary docs, official changelog, standards body, peer-reviewed work, vendor docs, reputable reporting). Prefer primary sources over aggregators.

3. Search iteratively. Start broad to map the landscape, then narrow with specific terms you learned from the first pass. Reformulate when results are thin — try the precise product/version name, error string, or domain term rather than paraphrase.

4. Read, don't skim-and-assume. Open the actual source. Distinguish the claim from the source's spin. Note publication dates — stale info is a common trap, especially for fast-moving tools.

5. Cross-check every load-bearing claim against at least one independent source. Two pages copying the same press release are one source. If sources conflict, surface the conflict and weigh credibility/recency rather than picking silently.

6. Track provenance as you go. Keep each fact tied to its URL so the final answer can cite. An uncited claim is a guess.

7. Synthesize. Answer the original question directly first, then support it. Separate what's well-established from what's uncertain or contested. State what you could not confirm.

Output

• Lead with the direct answer / recommendation.
• Support each material claim with a citation (plain URL).
• Call out uncertainty, conflicts, and recency explicitly — don't smooth them over.
• If the question couldn't be fully answered, say what's missing and what would resolve it.

Pitfalls

• Stopping at the first plausible result.
• Treating volume of agreement as truth when it's all one origin.
• Ignoring dates on time-sensitive topics.
• Presenting a confident synthesis that hides a real source conflict.
• Paraphrasing a source's claim as fact without verifying it.