searcharvester-deep-research

name	searcharvester-deep-research
description	Deep-research methodology with a ROLE-BASED team of parallel sub-agents. One `delegate_task` batch dispatches 2–3 researchers (each on a distinct sub-question), 1 critic (adversarial counter-search), and 1 fact-checker (numeric/date verification). The lead synthesises their findings into a cited report at ./report.md. Use for "research", "deep research", "report with sources", comparisons with citations, anything needing grounded multi-source evidence.
version	2.3.0
author	Searcharvester
license	MIT
metadata	{"hermes":{"tags":["research","deep-research","delegate_task","parallel","subagents","citations","adversarial"],"category":"research","related_skills":["searcharvester-search","searcharvester-extract","subagent-driven-development","writing-plans","plan"]}}

Searcharvester Deep Research (role-based)

Turn an open question into a cited markdown report grounded in real web sources. Instead of N homogeneous sub-agents, you dispatch a small TEAM with distinct roles — researchers gather, a critic tries to disprove, a fact-checker verifies numbers. Save to ./report.md.

Role

You are the lead researcher / editor. You do not personally run searcharvester-search or searcharvester-extract — the sub-agents do. Your job:

1. Decompose the user query into 2–3 concrete sub-questions.
2. Dispatch ONE delegate_task batch of 4–5 sub-agents with explicit roles (see Phase 2).
3. Collect their findings, reconcile disagreements, write ./report.md.

When to use

• "Research / deep research / analyse X"
• "Compare A vs B with sources"
• "What's publicly known about [person / topic / company]"
• "Who holds the record for X" (factual questions benefit from the critic role — memory-based answers are often stale)
• "What's the latest on X"

Do not use this skill for: coding tasks, or questions you genuinely cannot research online (private data, pure opinion).

Core principles

• Evidence before prose. No claim in the final report without a source a sub-agent actually extracted.
• Trust sources over memory. Even "well-known" facts get stale.
• Adversarial verification. The critic's job is to be wrong on purpose — if they find contradictions, surface them.

Procedure

Phase 1 — Decompose (lead)

Write a plan to ./plan.md:

cat > ./plan.md << 'EOF'
## Intent
<one sentence on what the user wants>

## Sub-questions (2–3)
1. <concrete, factually researchable>
2. ...

## Critical facts to fact-check
- <specific number/date/name that needs verification>

## Out of scope
- <things we won't cover>
EOF

Phase 2 — Two-round pipeline (lead)

The team runs in TWO delegate_task rounds, not one big batch. The second round sees what the first round produced. Without this, the critic is just searching blind and often confirms whatever the model already "knows" from training.

Round 1 — Researchers only (parallel)

delegate_task(
    tasks=[
        {
            "goal": "Researcher: sub-question 1 — <sub-question text>",
            "context": RESEARCHER_TEMPLATE.replace("<SUBQ>", "<q1>").replace("<USER_QUERY>", user_query),
            "toolsets": ["terminal"],
        },
        {
            "goal": "Researcher: sub-question 2 — <sub-question text>",
            "context": RESEARCHER_TEMPLATE.replace("<SUBQ>", "<q2>").replace("<USER_QUERY>", user_query),
            "toolsets": ["terminal"],
        },
        # 2 to 3 researchers, one per sub-question
    ],
)

Wait for the results. Each researcher returned a ### Findings block with Claim/Quote/URL bullets, a ### Notes confidence line, and saved their extracts to ./extracts/*.md.

Between rounds — Prepare critic/fact-checker context (lead)

Collect the researchers' claims and facts. Write a short ### Researcher summary — one line per researcher, listing the top claim + URL — plus a ### Facts to verify list extracting every number, date, name, and record-count the researchers stated.

This block goes into the critic's and fact-checker's context so they can target SPECIFIC claims instead of searching blind.

Round 2 — Critic + Fact-checker (parallel, but with Round 1 in context)

delegate_task(
    tasks=[
        {
            "goal": "Critic: attack the researchers' conclusions",
            "context": (
                CRITIC_TEMPLATE
                  .replace("<USER_QUERY>", user_query)
                  .replace("<RESEARCHER_SUMMARY>", researcher_summary_block)
            ),
            "toolsets": ["terminal"],
        },
        {
            "goal": "Fact-checker: verify specific claims",
            "context": (
                FACT_CHECKER_TEMPLATE
                  .replace("<USER_QUERY>", user_query)
                  .replace("<FACTS>", facts_to_verify_block)
            ),
            "toolsets": ["terminal"],
        },
    ],
)

The critic now has concrete claims to challenge. The fact-checker has the exact numbers to verify. They can cat ./extracts/<id>.md to re-read the same extracts the researchers pulled (shared workspace).

Exactly two rounds. Do not fire a third. If a claim still looks shaky after round 2, surface it in the report's "Disagreements" section instead of starting another batch.

---

Template: RESEARCHER

ROLE: Researcher. You investigate ONE focused sub-question and return
a structured list of claims, each quoted from a real URL you read.

SUB-QUESTION:
<SUBQ>

PARENT USER QUERY (for context only):
"<USER_QUERY>"

TOOLS: You only have the `terminal` toolset. Call the searcharvester
scripts as shell commands — they are not registered as tools:

  # Search — returns JSON of URLs + snippets
  python3 /opt/data/skills/searcharvester-search/scripts/search.py \
    --query "<query>" --max-results 5

  # Extract — saves FULL markdown to ./extracts/<id>.md and returns a
  # pointer (id, url, total_chars, path, 800-char preview).
  # There is no --size any more; every extract is saved in full so
  # you can read specific sections with shell tools.
  python3 /opt/data/skills/searcharvester-extract/scripts/extract.py \
    --url "<url>"

  # Then read the saved file precisely — no truncation:
  grep -ni 'keyword' ./extracts/<id>.md
  head -200 ./extracts/<id>.md
  sed -n '300,600p' ./extracts/<id>.md

HARD RULE: Your FIRST action must be a `terminal` call with search.py.
Never answer from your training memory — your data is older than today.

METHOD:
1. Run 2–4 search.py invocations with varied phrasings.
2. Pick 4–6 authoritative URLs from the combined results.
3. Run extract.py on each — this saves the FULL page to
   `./extracts/<id>.md`. If HTTP 422/502/500, try another URL.
4. Use `grep -ni` / `head` / `sed` on the saved files to find the
   specific quote you want to cite. The preview in extract.py's
   output is only 800 chars — the file has the rest.
5. Target: 4–6 successful extracts, each actually read (not just
   fetched — if you never grep or head it, you don't know what's
   really in there).

RETURN FORMAT (markdown only, no preamble):
### Findings
- **Claim**: <one-sentence factual claim>
  **Quote**: "<verbatim quote>"
  **URL**: https://...
- **Claim**: ...
(6–10 bullets total, each with a real URL)

### Notes
- Confidence: high / medium / low + one-line reason
- Most-recent source date: <YYYY-MM or "unknown">

IF YOUR OUTPUT HAS FEWER THAN 4 URLs YOU HAVE FAILED.

---

Template: CRITIC

ROLE: Critic. You have CONCRETE claims to attack — this is round 2.
The researchers already gathered evidence; your job is to check
whether they were right, or whether the real answer is different,
outdated, or more nuanced.

USER QUERY:
"<USER_QUERY>"

WHAT THE RESEARCHERS FOUND (attack THESE specifically, not the
question in the abstract):
<RESEARCHER_SUMMARY>

TOOLS: Same as researcher — terminal + searcharvester-search/extract
scripts (extract saves to `./extracts/<id>.md`; use grep/head to read
specific sections). You can ALSO `cat ./extracts/<id>.md` to re-read
any extract the researchers already pulled — the workspace is shared.

HARD RULE: Your FIRST action is a search.py call targeting a
SPECIFIC researcher claim. For each claim in <RESEARCHER_SUMMARY>,
ask yourself: "what would falsify this?" and search for THAT.
Examples:
  - Researcher says "Artist X has N wins" → search "<artist X> N+1
    wins" and "<artist X> most recent <award> win <current year>".
  - Researcher says "version released in <month> <year>" → search
    "<product> release history <year+1>".
  - Researcher says "record holder: X" → search "<award> current
    record holder <current year>" and look for names other than X.

METHOD:
1. Run 3–5 adversarial search.py calls derived from the concrete
   claims (not generic "X debate" searches).
2. Extract 2–4 URLs. Prefer primary sources (official site of the
   governing body) over news aggregators.
3. Read each extract from disk (`cat ./extracts/<id>.md | grep ...`) —
   the researchers' extracts are already there; you can re-read them
   before pulling new URLs.

RETURN FORMAT:
### Counter-evidence
- **Counter-claim**: <alternative answer someone proposes>
  **Quote**: "<verbatim>"
  **URL**: https://...
  **Verdict**: plausible / weak / outdated / disproven

### Verdict
One of:
- **Obvious answer confirmed** — after adversarial searching, the
  obvious answer still stands. Report the adversarial queries tried.
- **Obvious answer superseded** — a newer / different answer has
  overtaken it. Name the new answer with sources.
- **Contested** — multiple sources disagree; surface the conflict.

IF YOU HAVE NO URLs IN YOUR RESPONSE YOU HAVE FAILED.

---

Template: FACT_CHECKER

ROLE: Fact-checker. Verify specific numeric / date / name claims
related to the user's query. Your job is precision, not breadth.

USER QUERY:
"<USER_QUERY>"

FACTS TO VERIFY (derived from round-1 researcher findings):
<FACTS>

TOOLS: Same as researcher (extract saves to `./extracts/<id>.md`; use
`grep -ni '<fact>'` to locate the exact mention).

HARD RULE: For each fact, run ≥2 searches from DIFFERENT angles, and
extract from ≥2 DIFFERENT DOMAINS. A single-domain confirmation is not
confirmation — big sites reprint each other's errors. After extract,
`grep` the saved file for the specific number/date/name — don't trust
preview snippets.

METHOD:
1. For each fact in the list, run 2 search.py calls with different
   phrasings that would reveal the correct value.
2. Extract from 2 authoritative URLs per fact (preferably official
   or primary sources: governing body, Wikipedia, major newspaper).
3. If sources disagree, note both values and flag the discrepancy.

RETURN FORMAT:
### Fact verification
- **Fact**: <claim>
  **Source A**: <quote> — <url>
  **Source B**: <quote> — <url>
  **Confirmed value**: <value>  (or "disputed: A says X, B says Y")
  **Date of source**: <YYYY-MM>
- ...

### Summary
- Confirmed: <n>
- Disputed: <n>
- Unverifiable: <n>

IF ANY FACT IS CONFIRMED BY ONLY ONE DOMAIN, MARK IT "[tentative — single source]".

---

Phase 3 — Synthesise (lead)

When delegate_task returns:

1. Read each sub-agent's markdown block. Expect:
   • Researcher 1..N → ### Findings bullets with URLs
   • Critic → ### Counter-evidence + ### Verdict
   • Fact-checker → ### Fact verification + ### Summary
2. Reconcile:
   • If critic's verdict is "confirmed", write the obvious answer with standard caveats.
   • If critic's verdict is "superseded", the NEW answer becomes the headline; write a "What changed" paragraph explaining the supersession with the dates.
   • If critic's verdict is "contested", write a "Disagreements" section surfacing both sides.
3. Cross-check numbers with the fact-checker. Any number only confirmed by one domain gets [tentative — single source] inline.
4. Build a unified reference list — dedupe URLs, number them [1]..[N] in order of first appearance.
5. Write ./report.md.

# <Title reflecting the actual question>

## TL;DR
<2–4 sentences. If answer is contested or changed, say so here.>

## <Sub-topic 1>
<Claims with inline [n] citations; tentative ones get
`[tentative — single source]`.>

## <Sub-topic 2>
...

## What changed / Disagreements
<Include ONLY if the critic found supersession or contest. Spell out:
- What was commonly believed.
- What sources now say.
- Why the newer answer wins (primary source, recency, etc.).>

## Caveats
<Known limitations, unanswered parts.>

## References
[1] <short label> — <URL>
[2] <short label> — <URL>

Hard rules:

• Every claim has an inline [n] citation.
• Same URL = same number.
• Claim from only 1 source → [tentative — single source].
• If the critic or fact-checker surfaced a conflict, the "What changed / Disagreements" section is mandatory.
• Use tables for 3+ item comparisons.
• No marketing adjectives unless quoted.
• Numbers get units and dates.
• Match the user's language.

Phase 4 — Deliver

Before closing:

• ./report.md exists and > 400 bytes.
• Every non-TL;DR, non-References section has ≥1 inline [n].
• References list has ≥ 8 unique URLs (target 15+).
• TL;DR is standalone (no citations, no "see below").
• Critic verdict is reflected somewhere in the report.

Then print as the very last line:

REPORT_SAVED: ./report.md

Pitfalls

• Skipping the critic. Without it you get training-memory answers dressed up with confirmatory extracts. The critic's adversarial search is what catches stale / contested answers.
• Researchers overlap. Each researcher should own a distinct sub-question — if two researchers end up citing the same URL, you sliced the question wrong.
• Multiple delegate_task calls. Use the tasks=[...] batch form once. Calling delegate_task(goal=...) N times serialises the team and destroys the parallelism.
• Accepting Hermes "(empty)" summaries silently. If a sub-agent returns "(empty)" (model no-op), note it in the report's Caveats and do NOT pretend the research is complete.
• Free-form sub-agent output. Stick to the role templates. A researcher that writes prose instead of Claim / Quote / URL bullets is unusable.
• Sub-agent writing from memory. If a sub-agent's output has no URLs, it did not actually call extract.py — reject / note it.