report-findings

name	report-findings
description	This skill should be used when synthesizing multi-source research, presenting findings with attribution, or when "report", "findings", or "synthesis" are mentioned.
metadata	{"version":"1.1.0","related-skills":["research","codebase-recon","patterns"]}

Report Findings

Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.

<when_to_use>

• Synthesizing research from multiple sources
• Presenting findings with proper attribution
• Comparing options with structured analysis
• Assessing source credibility
• Documenting research conclusions

NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions

</when_to_use>

<source_authority>

Tier	Confidence	Types	Use For
1: Primary	90-100%	Official docs, original research, direct observation	Factual claims, guarantees
2: Secondary	70-90%	Expert analysis, established publications, official guides	Best practices, patterns
3: Community	50-70%	Q&A sites, blogs, wikis, anecdotal evidence	Workarounds, pitfalls
4: Unverified	0-50%	Unattributed, outdated, content farms, unchecked AI	Initial leads only

See source-tiers.md for detailed assessment criteria.

</source_authority>

<cross_referencing>

Two-Source Minimum

Never rely on single source for critical claims:

1. Find claim in initial source
2. Seek confirmation in independent source
3. If sources conflict → investigate further
4. If sources agree → moderate confidence
5. If 3+ sources agree → high confidence

Conflict Resolution

When sources disagree:

1. Check dates — newer information often supersedes
2. Compare authority — higher tier beats lower tier
3. Verify context — might both be right in different scenarios
4. Test empirically — verify through direct observation if possible
5. Document uncertainty — flag if unresolved

Triangulation

For complex questions, seek alignment across:

• Official sources — what should happen
• Direct evidence — what actually happens
• Community reports — what people experience

All three align → high confidence. Mismatches → investigate the gap.

</cross_referencing>

<comparison_analysis>

Three comparison methods:

Method	When to Use
Feature Matrix	Side-by-side capability comparison
Trade-off Analysis	Strengths/weaknesses/use cases per option
Weighted Matrix	Quantitative scoring with importance weights

See comparison-methods.md for templates and examples.

</comparison_analysis>

<synthesis_techniques>

Extract Themes

Across sources, identify:

• Consensus — what everyone agrees on
• Disagreements — where opinions differ
• Edge cases — nuanced situations

Present Findings

1. Main answer — clear, actionable
2. Supporting evidence — cite 2-3 strongest sources
3. Caveats — limitations, context-specific notes
4. Alternatives — other valid approaches

</synthesis_techniques>

<confidence_calibration>

Level	Indicator	Criteria
High	90-100%	3+ tier-1 sources agree, empirically verified
Moderate	60-89%	2 tier-2 sources agree, some empirical support
Low	Below 60%	Single source or tier-3 only, unverified

Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.

</confidence_calibration>

<output_format>

Standard report structure:

## Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer }

## Key Findings
1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}

## Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }

## Confidence Assessment
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%

## Sources
- [Source](url) — tier {N}

## Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }

See output-template.md for full template with guidelines.

</output_format>

ALWAYS:

• Assess source authority before citing
• Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
• Include confidence levels with findings
• Cite sources with proper attribution
• Flag uncertainties

NEVER:

• Cite single source for critical claims
• Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
• Skip confidence calibration
• Hide conflicting sources
• Omit caveats when uncertainty exists

• source-tiers.md — detailed authority assessment
• comparison-methods.md — comparison templates
• output-template.md — full report structure

Research vs Report-Findings:

• research skill covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
• This skill (report-findings) covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation

Load this skill during research synthesis stage, or standalone for any task requiring multi-source synthesis with proper attribution.