| name | research-brief |
| description | Research and structured summary around a question—integrate known facts, list items to verify, separate opinion from evidence. For non-coding info tasks like "look this up", "research", "compare options", "background". |
Research Brief
When to use
Before related work, call skill_view{name: "research-brief"} to load the full body.
Use when scattered information must become readable conclusions, e.g.:
- Background on a product, policy, industry, or person
- Compare options, services, or approaches
- Fact base for writing, decisions, or meetings
- User gives links or attachments and asks for key points
Not for: polishing when the user already gave a full answer (humanizer); live web retrieval—use web_search / web_extract first, then this skill to organize.
Workflow
- Clarify the question: one sentence on what the user really wants; use
clarify if scope is fuzzy.
- Gather: conversation,
web_search, read_file, user attachments; state gaps—do not fabricate.
- Separate layers: fact / reasonable inference / unverified claim / your recommendation.
- Cite sources where possible; mark unverified as "to confirm".
- Action-oriented: end with 2–4 "if you go deeper…" or "decide after confirming…".
Default output structure
## Question
(restate the research question)
## Executive summary
(3–5 sentences, answer direction first)
## Key points
- ...
## Comparison / pros & cons (if applicable)
| Dimension | A | B |
|-----------|---|---|
## Uncertainty & gaps
- ...
## Suggested next steps
- ...
Long research may be split; for "brief only" keep executive summary + key points.
Platform conventions
- Default: deliver in chat;
artifact_save when user explicitly asks to save.
- Not legal, medical, or investment advice—add a boundary line for those topics.
