gigaplexity-research-verification

name	gigaplexity-research-verification
description	High-rigor research and fact-verification skill using Gigaplexity tools. MUST use when the task requires external facts, comparisons, due diligence, trend analysis, or any answer where confidence and citations matter.
argument-hint	Research question, scope, constraints, and required depth

Gigaplexity Research & Verification Skill

Purpose

Use this skill to produce trustworthy, citation-backed, decision-ready answers. This skill is optimized for external information research, verification, and synthesis with clear uncertainty handling.

MUST Use When

Use this skill by default when at least one condition is true:

• User asks for research, analysis, comparison, fact-checking, or market/tech landscape.
• Request depends on current or external information not guaranteed to be in workspace.
• Output will influence a decision (product, architecture, hiring, vendor, strategy).
• User explicitly asks for sources, citations, or “проверь информацию”.
• There is a risk of hallucination or high cost of being wrong.

Do NOT Use As Primary Workflow When

• Task is pure local refactoring/debugging with no external facts.
• User asks for simple brainstorming with no requirement for factual accuracy.

Tooling Strategy (Gigaplexity-first)

1. Start with #tool:gigaplexity/ask for fast orientation.
2. Use #tool:gigaplexity/research for multi-step deep coverage.
3. Use #tool:gigaplexity/reason to resolve contradictions and edge cases.
4. If evidence is thin or conflicting, expand with web tools.

Research Quality Protocol

1) Scope & Success Criteria

• Restate objective, audience, and decision context.
• Define “done”: what exactly must be answered.
• Capture constraints: timeline, geography, industry, versions, budget/risk.

2) Evidence Collection

• Gather sources from multiple independent domains.
• Prefer primary/original sources (official docs, standards, papers, filings, vendor docs).
• Use secondary sources only to complement, never as single point of truth.

3) Verification & Triangulation

• Validate each key claim with at least 2 independent sources when possible.
• Mark unresolved conflicts explicitly and explain why.
• Separate facts from interpretation.

4) Source Quality Scoring (required for important claims)

For each critical claim, quickly score source quality:

• Authority (official/recognized?)
• Freshness (date and version relevance?)
• Specificity (direct evidence vs vague summary?)
• Independence (not circularly citing same origin?)
• Reproducibility (can reader verify?)

5) Uncertainty Handling

• Always include a short “Confidence” note.
• Use labels: High / Medium / Low confidence.
• Explain uncertainty drivers (missing data, conflicting reports, outdated docs).

6) Synthesis

• Build answer top-down: executive summary → findings → implications → recommendation.
• Keep claims compact and link each to evidence.
• Avoid citation dumping; cite only what supports a concrete statement.

Language Policy

• Respond in the user’s language.
• Search in the language most likely to maximize evidence quality:
  • Global tech/business topics: English.
  • Local policy/legal/regional topics: local language + English cross-check.

Output Contract (default)

Return in this structure:

1. Executive Summary (2–5 sentences)
2. Findings (grouped by theme)
3. Conflicts & Uncertainty (if any)
4. Recommendation / Next Step
5. Sources (clean list with links)

Citation Discipline

• Every non-trivial factual claim should be attributable.
• Prefer inline citations near claims.
• If a source is weak, say so.
• Never fabricate a source or URL.

Anti-Patterns (strictly avoid)

• Confident answer without evidence.
• One-source conclusions for high-impact decisions.
• Mixing assumptions and facts without labeling.
• Presenting stale information as current.

Fast Invocation Template

Use this template when launching research:

"Research objective: . Context: <project/user constraints>. Need: <facts/comparison/verification>. Depth: quick | standard | deep. Output: executive summary, findings with citations, uncertainty note, recommendation."

Completion Checklist

• Scope and constraints are explicit
• Key claims are source-backed
• Conflicts resolved or clearly flagged
• Confidence level provided
• Final recommendation is actionable