research

name	research
description	External research with WebSearch + WebFetch + MCP — structured output to .meta/references/raw/

/research

Gather structured external research on a question and write findings to .meta/references/raw/. Orthogonal to /brainstorm (internal ideation) and /tech-watch (GitHub repo deep dives).

When to use: the answer depends on facts outside your training data — recent libraries, competitor tools, emerging patterns, state-of-the-art, or any claim that may have changed since the knowledge cutoff.

When NOT to use: you already know the answer and it is timeless — use /brainstorm instead. Do not use /research to avoid thinking, only to avoid guessing.

---

Hard rules

• No code editing. This skill only reads and writes research artifacts.
• Always write an output file to .meta/references/raw/ — never deliver findings only in chat. Chat disappears; files don't.
• Always cite sources with URL + date accessed. A finding without a source is an opinion.
• Warn if fewer than 3 distinct sources — single-source findings are fragile.
• Soft budget: recommend stopping at 8 WebFetch calls per run. User can override.
• No credential-gated sources — public URLs only.
• Prefer MCP when available (e.g., context7 for library docs) — higher signal than raw WebFetch.

---

Three steps

1. Clarify

Reformulate the question in one precise sentence: what needs to be known, what time horizon, what depth. If the reformulation differs from the user's phrasing, show it and confirm before starting.

2. Research

• Run WebSearch with 2-3 query variants (direct, comparative, trend form).
• Fetch 3-5 promising URLs. Prioritize official docs > peer-reviewed > well-known blogs > forums.
• Stop when 3 strong sources agree; continue to 5 if findings diverge.
• Group findings into 2-5 themes. Identify consensus and divergence — divergence is often the most valuable finding.

3. Write

Write to .meta/references/raw/session-YYYY-MM-DD-research-<slug>.md following output-schema.md (same directory as this SKILL.md). Every field in the schema is mandatory.

Then propose one next step: /brainstorm (decision needed), /spec (scope clear), /tech-watch (specific repo surfaced), or nothing (self-contained).

---

Rationalizations (why you must NOT skip steps)

Excuse	Why it's wrong
"I know the answer from training data"	Training has a cutoff. Research is for current facts.
"One source is enough"	Single-source = fragile. Warn if you can't reach 3.
"I'll just summarize in chat, no file needed"	Chat context disappears. The file is the deliverable.
"The user seems in a hurry"	A poor artifact creates false confidence. Write the file even if brief.