research

name	research
description	Use this skill when gathering knowledge at scale before making decisions - technology evaluation, SOTA analysis, codebase archaeology, competitive analysis, or any investigation requiring multiple sources. Activates on mentions of research, investigate, evaluate options, what's the best, compare alternatives, state of the art, deep dive, explore the landscape, or find out how.

Multi-Agent Research

Wave-based knowledge gathering with deferred synthesis. Mined from 300+ real research dispatches: the pattern that consistently produces actionable intelligence.

Core insight: Research breadth-first, synthesize after. Conclusions drawn from the first three results miss nuance the fourth wave would have surfaced. Deploying agents in waves and accumulating findings before synthesizing produces sharper recommendations.

How to read this skill: calibrate to the question, not the framework. Most research is Quick Mode or one wave plus targeted follow-ups; only deep dives need the full pattern. The Phase 1 budget table sizes it.

The Shape

digraph research {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=box];

    "1. PRIME" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8e8ff"];
    "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep" [style=filled, fillcolor="#ffe8e8"];
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" [style=filled, fillcolor="#fff8e0"];
    "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted" [style=filled, fillcolor="#ffe8e8"];
    "5. SYNTHESIZE" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8ffe8"];
    "6. DECIDE & RECORD" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8e8ff"];

    "1. PRIME" -> "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep";
    "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep" -> "3. GAP ANALYSIS";
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" -> "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted";
    "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted" -> "3. GAP ANALYSIS" [label="still gaps", style=dashed];
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" -> "5. SYNTHESIZE" [label="coverage sufficient"];
    "5. SYNTHESIZE" -> "6. DECIDE & RECORD";
}

---

Phase 1: PRIME

Lean on existing knowledge before spawning agents. Re-running research that already lives in Sibyl burns tokens and produces duplicate entries.

Common moves

• Search Sibyl first: sibyl search "<research topic>", sibyl search "<related technology>", sibyl search "<prior decision in this area>". Surface what's already known before generating new findings.

• Check for staleness. Fast-moving topics (frameworks, models, cloud services) usually warrant re-research even when Sibyl has recent entries; treat the existing knowledge as a baseline. Stable topics with recent entries often don't need a fresh pass at all. One class is never exempt: version, "latest", and SOTA facts expire no matter how recent the entry feels. Recalled memory routes the investigation, live state decides. Re-verify those against the primary source before they drive a dispatch or a recommendation. Same rot law for prior research docs: anything older than the reality it describes gets a per-claim liveness check against live sources and current code before it shapes a decision.

• Premise-check the target. Confirm the data, repo, or question actually exists (and disambiguate which one) before any agent launches. A wave pointed at a wrong or empty target manufactures findings.

• Sharpen the research question. "Research databases" is too vague to dispatch on. "Compare PostgreSQL vs CockroachDB for multi-region write-heavy workloads with <10ms p99 latency" gives agents enough scope to do useful work.

• Calibrate the research budget to the decision the research is feeding:

  Depth	Agents	When
  Quick scan	2-3	Known domain, just need latest info
  Standard	5-10	Technology evaluation, architecture options
  Deep dive	10-30	Greenfield decisions, SOTA analysis
  Exhaustive	30-60+	New project inception, competitive landscape

Source quality contract

This bit is non-negotiable: the value of research collapses when claims rest on stale blog posts. Specific claim types deserve specific source standards:

Claim type	Preferred source
Current version	Package registry, release page, or official CLI
CLI flags / config keys	Official docs or local --help output
Security frameworks	OWASP, NIST, SLSA/OpenSSF, CIS, ISO, PCI sources
Cloud/provider behavior	Provider docs and current changelog
Research papers / SOTA	Paper, benchmark repo, or authors' artifact
Community health	Repository activity plus issue/release cadence

When primary sources disagree with secondary ones, trust the primary source and note the discrepancy. Date volatile facts explicitly, and prefer commands/sources the next agent can rerun over screenshots that go stale.

The hierarchy: a version-pinned artifact you can actually run beats official docs, which beat blog posts, which beat memory. Names that cross a system boundary (metric names, config keys, CRD fields) get read from the actual emitter or consumer at the pinned version. And facts reported by your own research agents are claims, not evidence: before synthesis rests a conclusion on a claim, open the primary source yourself.

---

Phase 2: WAVE 1: Broad Sweep

Deploy the first wave of agents across the full research surface. The goal is breadth; accept that some agents will produce mediocre output, that's what gap analysis is for.

What good agent prompts have

Vague prompts produce vague research. Each agent benefits from:

• One specific topic (not "research everything about X")
• An output file path (no ambiguity about where to write)
• Temporal grounding (current month stated, memory declared stale, [unverified] flags required)
• Search hints (include year: "search [topic] 2026")
• 8-12 numbered coverage items that scope the research precisely
• Source quality guidance ("prefer official docs and GitHub repos over blog posts")

Wave 1 Template

Research [SPECIFIC_TOPIC] for [PROJECT/DECISION].

Create a research doc at docs/research/[filename].md covering:

1. Current state (latest version, recent changes)
2. [Specific capability A relevant to our use case]
3. [Specific capability B]
4. [Integration with our stack: list specific technologies]
5. Performance characteristics / benchmarks
6. Known limitations and gotchas
7. Community health (stars, activity, maintenance)
8. Comparison with alternatives (name 2-3 specific alternatives)

Current month is [MONTH YEAR]. Your training data is stale — do NOT
answer from memory for versions, features, pricing, or capabilities.
Use WebSearch for current information. Include dates on all facts.
Cite sources with URLs. Flag any claim you can't pin to a primary
source as [unverified].

Deployment notes

• Use the host's fan-out verb. Claude Code: parallel background Agent calls. Codex: spawn_agent. Pi (pi-nova pack): the dispatch tool with "mode": "parallel" researcher tasks. Keep each task narrow, source-quality explicit, and output-oriented.
• Background by default. Research agents have no inter-dependencies, so foreground execution serializes work that should run in parallel.
• Mind the delegation gate. Some hosts (Codex, as of Jul 2026) only allow spawning subagents when the user explicitly asked for delegation. Without that ask, run the research lanes sequentially yourself.
• One file per agent. Shared outputs create write contention and lose attribution.
• Group by theme when researching many topics. 12 separate dispatches become 3-4 thematic clusters with clearer synthesis later.

Coverage Strategy

For technology evaluations, cover these dimensions:

Dimension	Question
Capability	Does it do what we need?
Performance	Is it fast enough?
Ecosystem	Does it integrate with our stack?
Maturity	Is it production-ready?
Community	Will it be maintained in 2 years?
Cost	What does it cost at our scale?
Migration	How hard is it to adopt/abandon?

Run an internal lane alongside the web wave. When research feeds a decision about an existing system, the decisive constraint usually lives in your own repo or live state (the auth pattern, session semantics, or pinned version the winning option must survive). Finding it is a grep, not a research agent, and it costs zero agents. A web-perfect answer can still ship a broken migration.

---

Phase 3: GAP ANALYSIS

After Wave 1, look for what's missing before synthesizing. Premature synthesis is the most common research failure: the answer feels obvious after three docs and turns out to be wrong after eight.

What to look for

• Coverage gaps: dimensions the wave didn't touch, missing comparisons, questions raised but not answered
• Contradictions: agents reaching different conclusions on the same question (often signal for verification agents)
• Bias signals: all-positive findings (suspicious, look for failure cases), only-official-docs (need community experience), same sources cited repeatedly (need source diversity)
• False consensus: agents (or a second model) converging on the same version or SOTA fact is not confirmation; shared training data agrees with itself. A live registry or release-page fetch settles version claims, never vote count.

Decision Point

Finding	Action
Good coverage, minor gaps	Synthesize now, note gaps
Significant gaps	Deploy Wave 2 targeted agents
Contradictory findings	Deploy verification agents to resolve
Entirely new direction emerged	Deploy Wave 2 in new direction

---

Phase 4: WAVE 2+: Targeted Research

Fill specific gaps identified in the analysis. Wave 2 agents differ from Wave 1 in shape:

• Smaller scope: one specific question per agent
• Higher quality bar: "find production experience reports, not just docs"
• Cross-reference prompts: "Agent X found [claim], verify against [alternative source]"
• Deep reads: "Read the full README and API docs for [library], not just the landing page"

When to stop

Stop deploying waves when the research question can be answered with confidence, when key claims have 2+ independent sources, or when the user signals "enough, let's decide." The real stopper is yield: a wave that changes no conclusion is the last wave.

Kill low-yield lanes out loud mid-wave ("this lane is a dead end") and re-anchor to a higher-signal source rather than re-running variants of the same walk.

Three waves is a sound default budget, not a hard stop. Waves that keep moving the conclusions can continue past it; waves that oscillate instead of narrowing mean the question itself needs reframing.

---

Phase 5: SYNTHESIZE

Combine all findings into actionable intelligence.

Synthesis Structure

## Research: [Topic]

### TL;DR

[2-3 sentences. The answer, not the journey.]

### Recommendation

[Clear choice with justification. Don't hedge, pick one.]

### Options Evaluated

| Option | Fit | Maturity | Perf | Ecosystem | Verdict         |
| ------ | --- | -------- | ---- | --------- | --------------- |
| A      | ... | ...      | ...  | ...       | Best for [X]    |
| B      | ... | ...      | ...  | ...       | Best for [Y]    |
| C      | ... | ...      | ...  | ...       | Avoid: [reason] |

### Key Findings

1. [Most important finding with source]
2. [Second most important]
3. [Third most important]

### Risks & Gotchas

- [Known issue or limitation]
- [Migration complexity]
- [Hidden cost]

### Sources

- [Source 1](url): [what it contributed]
- [Source 2](url): [what it contributed]

Synthesis principles

• Lead with the recommendation. Forcing the reader to wade through findings to find the answer is the most common synthesis failure.
• Separate facts from opinions. "PostgreSQL supports JSONB" (fact) vs "PostgreSQL is better for this use case" (opinion backed by evidence). Both are useful; conflating them isn't.
• Include dissenting evidence. If one source contradicts the recommendation, name it. Cherry-picked synthesis is worse than no synthesis.
• Date everything. "As of [month] [year], [library] is at v4.2." Research spoils fast.
• Note confidence level. "High confidence: well-documented" / "Low confidence: based on one blog post" gives the reader the calibration they need.

---

Phase 6: DECIDE & RECORD

Lock in the decision and capture it for future sessions.

Actions

1. Present the synthesis to the user with a clear recommendation

2. Record in Sibyl. The capture carries: options evaluated, the choice and why, the key risk, primary source URLs, and today's date. Use the sibyl skill for the current verbs. CLI shapes drift faster than skills. If the capture fails (server down, verb changed), park the entry verbatim in the synthesis flagged "NOT captured". Never silently drop the Record beat, and never block on it.

3. Archive research docs: keep the wave outputs for reference:

   • If in a project: docs/research/[topic]/
   • If general knowledge: Sibyl learning entry is sufficient

4. Exit to next action:

   Next Step	When
   /hyperskills:brainstorm	Research surfaced multiple viable approaches
   /hyperskills:plan	Decision made, ready to decompose implementation
   /hyperskills:orchestrate	Decision made, work is parallelizable
   Direct implementation	Research confirmed a simple path

The exit artifact

Research output is not a build contract. Before it feeds plan, force the product cuts: the first workflow, the minimal boundaries, one vertical slice. When the decision is "build," prefer exiting into the riskiest narrow slice (a canary wedge that proves or breaks the approach before anything gets polished) over a fleet-wide plan. Triage findings as adopt / borrow the ideas / ignore with confidence.

A report that lands as a file is a document humans read, so run deslop on it before handing it over. Synthesized findings are where AI tells breed: agent summaries arrive pre-slopped, and stitching them together compounds the inflated significance, the hedging, and the rule-of-three cadences. Findings written straight into chat stay on the chat surface and skip the pass.

---

Quick Research Mode

For focused questions that don't need the full wave protocol:

1. Search Sibyl (always)
2. 2-3 targeted searches (WebSearch + WebFetch on key URLs)
3. Synthesize inline (no separate docs)
4. Record if non-obvious (Sibyl learning)

Use when: "What's the latest version of X?", "Does Y support Z?", "What's the recommended way to do W?"

---

Research Patterns by Type

Type	The non-obvious move
Technology evaluation	Wave 2 hunts production experience reports and benchmarks, not more docs. And the internal lane runs alongside the whole time.
Codebase archaeology	Synthesize into an architecture diagram + dependency map, not prose. Often it IS the internal lane of a larger evaluation.
SOTA analysis	Vet headline claims for comparability (same benchmark version? harness released? tuned on test? gold leakage?) and verdict as "adopt the architecture, ignore the ritual." A debunked premise is a first-class result.
Competitive landscape	Absence is a finding: report what nobody is doing as deliberately as what everyone is. Verify from opened artifacts, not search-result snippets.

---

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Fix
Synthesizing after Wave 1 only	Wait for gap analysis, premature conclusions miss nuance
50 agents with "research everything"	Specific scope per agent, vague prompts produce vague results
Only official documentation	Include community experience, docs show intent, community shows reality
No dates on findings	Date everything, research spoils faster than produce
No recommendation	Force a decision, "more research needed" is only valid with a specific question
Researching what Sibyl already knows	Always prime first, don't burn tokens re-discovering known patterns

---

What This Skill is NOT

• Not a substitute for reading code. If the answer is in the codebase, read the codebase.
• Not an infinite loop. Three waves is the default budget; the stopper is yield, not count. When waves oscillate instead of narrowing, reframe the question.
• Not required for known domains. If you already know the answer, just say so and cite your knowledge.
• Not a delay tactic. Research serves a decision. If no decision follows, the research was waste.