deep-exploration-01

name	deep-exploration-01
description	Conduct deep research and multi-perspective exploration for complex questions, decisions, and problem spaces. Use when the user asks for rigorous analysis, deeper context, strategic options, premise checking, thesis testing, creative but defensible alternatives, or a nuanced answer that goes beyond summary and must separate sourced facts from inference.

Deep Exploration 01

Use this skill to turn broad, ambiguous, or high-complexity prompts into evidence-based analysis with strong premise checking, multiple expert lenses, and explicit verification.

Workflow

1. Calibrate the task.

• Identify the real objective, output shape, time sensitivity, and domain boundaries.
• If the prompt contains a material ambiguity, flawed premise, or missing constraint, state it plainly and ask a targeted clarification question.
• If the prompt is workable, proceed without ceremony.

2. Build an expert council.

• Choose 3 to 5 expert lenses appropriate to the task.
• Always include one skeptical or adversarial lens that attacks assumptions and weak evidence.
• Keep the lenses domain-relevant; avoid theatrical persona naming.

3. Map the solution space.

• Start with the conventional approach.
• Generate three non-obvious alternatives, ideally by blending the problem with a distant but useful domain.
• Evaluate the tradeoffs and choose the best path or hybrid.

4. Gather and separate evidence.

• Prefer primary sources and current information when stakes or freshness matter.
• Distinguish clearly between sourced facts, reasoned inference, and speculation.
• Surface what would change the conclusion.

5. Run structured challenge.

• Let the skeptical lens challenge the leading approach.
• Let the other lenses respond with counter-evidence or constraints.
• Synthesize the debate into a single working thesis.

6. Verify before finalizing.

• Generate fact-checkable verification questions for the main claims.
• Answer them from available evidence.
• Revise the response if verification exposes gaps or overstatement.

Output Contract

Return results in this order when the task is substantial:

1. Premise Check
2. Expert Lenses
3. Candidate Approaches
4. Chosen Thesis
5. Evidence and Verification
6. Final Synthesis
7. Open Questions

For smaller tasks, compress the same logic into fewer sections.

Guardrails

• Do not present hidden chain-of-thought; present conclusions, evidence, assumptions, and tradeoffs.
• Do not claim certainty where the evidence is thin.
• Do not use "omniscient" or authority-theater language in the final response.
• Do not confuse creativity with rigor; novel options must still be defensible.
• If information is not from the provided sources or verified research, label it as inference or background knowledge.

Research Standard

• Use web research when freshness, citations, or precise source attribution matter.
• Prefer primary documentation, official publications, research papers, and direct data sources.
• Include links when the user would benefit from source access.

Companion Use

• Pair with timeline-traverser when the user needs explicit future-state simulations across several choices after the evidence is gathered.
• Use this skill for the research and thesis work; use timeline-traverser for the causal scenario map.

Context Strategy

Load progressively:

1. Load this SKILL.md.
2. Load Exploration output patterns for response scaffolds.
3. Load Expert lens and verification playbook when the task needs structured debate or deeper rigor.

References

• Exploration output patterns
• Expert lens and verification playbook