full-research

name	full-research
description	Comprehensive grounded research with rigorous source verification. Use when user needs thorough research with verbatim citations, fact-checking verification, or academic-level source grounding on complex topics.
argument-hint	["topic"]
allowed-tools	WebFetch, Read, Task
user-invocable	true
context	fork
agent	Explore

Grounded Research: $ARGUMENTS

Grounding Rules

1. Use only information explicitly present in discovered sources
2. Include inline citation for every factual claim: [Source: X, Quote: "..."]
3. When information is absent from sources, state "Not found in provided sources"
4. Classify each claim:
   • 📄 STATED: Direct from source (with quote)
   • 🔗 INFERRED: Logical connection between sources (explain reasoning)
   • ❓ UNCERTAIN: Reasonable but unverified (flag explicitly)

Avoid: unsourced claims, meaning-altering paraphrases, "general knowledge" gap-filling, unstated assumptions.

---

Phase 1: Source Processing

Search for and read 3-5 high-quality sources. Prioritize: official docs > meta-analyses > highly-cited papers > tutorials.

For each source, extract:

### Source [N]: [Title/URL]

Key Claims (verbatim quotes):

1. "[Exact quote]" → Supports: [what this evidences]
2. "[Exact quote]" → Supports: [what this evidences]

Source Limitations:

• Type: [docs/paper/blog/etc.]
• Potential bias: [if any]

Funding & Sponsorship:

• 💰 Funder/Sponsor: [Organization/company funding the study, or "Not disclosed"]
• 🏢 Author Affiliations: [Key affiliations that may indicate conflicts]
• ⚠️ Conflict of Interest: [Declared COIs, or "None declared", or "Not stated"]
• 🎯 Sponsor Alignment: [Does the conclusion align with sponsor's commercial interests? Yes/No/N/A]

---

Phase 2: Chain-of-Thought Synthesis

Re-anchor: every claim needs a verbatim quote and source number.

Connect sources systematically:

1. Claim: [Synthesized claim]
   • Evidence: [Source N, Quote: "..."]
   • Confidence: High/Medium/Low
   • Sponsorship Bias Risk: 🟢 None / 🟡 Possible / 🔴 Likely — [brief explanation if applicable]
   • Reasoning chain: Source A states X → Source B confirms Y → Therefore Z

When multiple sources agree, verify they do not share the same funder — because shared funding can create correlated bias. Weight industry-funded studies with sponsor-aligned conclusions lower. Prefer independently funded or publicly funded research.

---

Phase 3: Grounded Verification (Subagent)

Use Task tool to spawn a verification subagent with clean context.

Pass to subagent:

1. Synthesis claims (Phase 2 output)
2. All source URLs and their extracted quotes

Subagent prompt:

You are a fact-checking agent. Verify these claims against provided sources.

CLAIMS TO VERIFY:
[paste synthesis claims]

SOURCES WITH QUOTES:
[paste source extracts]

For each claim:
1. Find supporting quote in sources
2. Check if quote actually supports claim (exact match vs stretched interpretation)
3. Flag any claim without direct source backing

Output format:
| Claim | Source Quote | Match Quality | Issue |
|-------|--------------|---------------|-------|

Flag as UNGROUNDED anything not directly traceable to a source quote.

SPONSORSHIP BIAS CHECK:
For each claim backed primarily by industry-funded sources:
1. Is there independent corroboration from non-industry sources?
2. Does the claim directly benefit the funding organization?
3. Rate sponsorship bias risk: 🟢 None / 🟡 Possible / 🔴 Likely

Integrate subagent findings back into your output.

---

Phase 4: Self-Critique

Re-anchor grounding rules: every claim needs a citation, no gap-filling, uncertainties flagged.

Check	Pass/Fail
Every claim has citation?
Quotes are verbatim?
No "common knowledge" gap-filling?
Uncertainties flagged?
Funding/sponsorship identified per source?
Industry-funded claims independently corroborated?

If any check fails, revise the relevant section before producing output.

---

Output Format

Output TL;DR first, before any phases or detailed analysis.

TL;DR

[2-3 sentence bottom-line answer. Plain language, no citations. What does the user need to know?]

---

Detailed analysis follows below.

Summary

[Key findings - every sentence with [Source: N] citation]

### Evidence Table

Claim	Source	Verbatim Quote	Confidence	Bias Risk
[claim]	[N]	"[exact words]"	High/Med/Low	🟢/🟡/🔴

Sponsorship & Bias Map

Source	Funder/Sponsor	Author Affiliations	Declared COI	Conclusion Favors Sponsor?
[N]	[org]	[affiliations]	[yes/no/undisclosed]	[yes/no/N/A]

Bias Warnings: [Flag any claims that rely primarily on industry-funded sources without independent corroboration]

What Sources Don't Cover

[Gaps - what wasn't found]

Sources

[List all sources with URLs]

---

Edge Cases

• Fewer than 3 sources found: State the gap explicitly, reduce confidence ratings, note limited evidence in TL;DR
• All sources share a funder: Flag correlated bias risk prominently, search for independent corroboration before synthesizing
• Subagent flags claims as UNGROUNDED: Remove or reclassify as ❓ UNCERTAIN with explanation — do not keep ungrounded claims in the final output
• Contradictory sources: Present both positions with quotes, do not pick a winner without evidence-based reasoning

Input: "Research the health effects of intermittent fasting" Output: TL;DR first, then 3-5 source extracts with funding/bias metadata, synthesis claims with evidence chains, verification subagent table, self-critique checklist, and final structured output with Evidence Table and Sponsorship Map.