| name | multi-agent-deep-research |
| description | Plan and execute deep research, literature reviews, due diligence, competitive analysis, policy comparison, market mapping, or investigative reports with source-verifiable claims, local ledgers, and optional multi-agent delegation. Use when the user asks for a high-quality report, wants citations or auditable evidence, wants research process files written locally, or needs help managing context-window limits during multi-source research. |
Multi-Agent Deep Research
Run research as a file-backed production workflow, not as a chat-only exercise. Optimize for source traceability, narrow ownership, compact handoffs, and a final report that distinguishes facts, interpretations, comparisons, and forecasts.
Quick start
- Freeze the topic, audience, report shape, and research cutoff date before collecting sources.
- Create one canonical project root in the current workspace and treat it as the single source of truth.
- Persist project memory immediately: status, task board, source ledger, claim ledger, fact-check log, handoffs, and draft report.
- If the user explicitly wants multi-agent work, split the project into bounded roles with disjoint write scopes. Otherwise use the same workflow locally without delegation.
- Collect sources first, write claims second, draft only from verified claims, and end with a QA pass that checks dates, comparability, and unsupported conclusions.
Non-negotiables
- Keep exactly one canonical project directory.
- Write project memory to local files; do not rely on chat history as durable state.
- Prefer primary sources for unstable or high-stakes facts.
- Give every substantive claim a
claim_id and at least one source_id.
- Put absolute dates on fast-moving facts and on the report cutoff.
- State the comparison metric and time window whenever comparing countries, companies, models, markets, or policies.
- Separate
hard_fact, reported_fact, interpretation, comparison, and forecast.
- Do not let multiple agents edit the same files unless the user explicitly wants that tradeoff.
Workflow
1. Freeze scope
- Clarify the research question, target reader, deliverable format, and report cutoff date.
- Prefer dimensional comparison over a single headline ranking when the topic is structurally uneven.
- Record the scope and stop conditions before searching.
For a starter layout, load references/project-layout.md.
2. Create the file-backed workspace
- Create the project root and a minimal scaffold for workflow, sources, claims, checks, handoffs, and deliverables.
- Record current phase, next actions, and open questions in a short status file.
- Update these files every round so a later agent can resume without replaying chat.
For copy-paste starter files, load references/templates.md.
3. Decide the delegation pattern
- Only spawn subagents when the user explicitly asks for multi-agent or delegation work.
- Use one agent per bounded responsibility or per independent research slice.
- Assign each agent one objective, one read set, one write scope, one cutoff date, and one handoff target.
- Keep the PM/orchestrator role local whenever possible so synthesis and quality control stay centralized.
For role options and handoff contracts, load references/delegation-patterns.md.
4. Collect sources
- Build the source ledger before building the narrative.
- Prioritize primary sources: official documents, filings, company docs, papers, model cards, release notes, government pages, and original datasets.
- Use high-quality secondary sources for synthesis and triangulation when primary material is incomplete.
- Record enough metadata that another reviewer can reopen the source later.
For evidence rules and claim classes, load references/evidence-standards.md.
5. Build claims
- Convert source notes into atomic claims.
- Attach
source_id, claim class, confidence, date range, and comparability notes.
- Mark unsupported or unresolved claims as
draft, blocked, contested, or equivalent; do not quietly promote them into the report.
6. Normalize comparisons
- Build a comparison matrix when the report compares two or more entities.
- Explicitly mark rows as
comparable, partial, or not_comparable.
- If two sources use different units, populations, definitions, or time windows, say so instead of forcing a clean ranking.
7. Draft the report
- Put the research cutoff date near the top.
- Draft from verified claims only.
- Keep the main text readable, but make the evidence chain auditable through source and claim ledgers.
- Include a methods section, limits section, and open questions or future watchpoints section.
8. QA the report
- Recheck every numerical claim, dated statement, and leadership claim.
- Downgrade or remove statements that are true only under narrow assumptions.
- Ensure the final report does not blur facts and inference.
- Confirm that every citation in the report resolves back to the local ledgers.
Delegation rules
- Keep agent ownership disjoint by file path or by work package.
- Require every handoff to include:
done, verified, open, next, and changed files.
- Do not ask scouts to write synthesis if their job is evidence collection.
- Do not ask drafters to invent facts or fill gaps from memory.
- Route conflicts back to the source layer, not to a rhetorical compromise.
Writing rules
- Prefer direct, dated language: "As of 2026-03-21..." over relative timing.
- Use cautious wording for vendor claims, self-reported performance, and fast-moving policy changes.
- Avoid totalizing conclusions like "X is winning overall" unless the evidence really supports that scope.
- End with what is still uncertain and what could change the conclusion.
Reference map
references/project-layout.md -> canonical directory structure and when to create each artifact.references/delegation-patterns.md -> role menu, handoff contract, and anti-duplication rules.references/evidence-standards.md -> source hierarchy, claim classes, and QA gates.references/templates.md -> compact starter templates for ledgers, status files, and handoffs.
