deep-research

name	deep-research
description	Use when researching complex topics, evaluating technologies, investigating domains, or answering multi-faceted questions requiring web research. Triggers: 'research X', 'investigate Y', 'evaluate options for Z', 'what are the best approaches to', 'help me understand', 'deep dive into', 'compare alternatives', 'look into', 'find out about'. NOT for: exploring design approaches (use design-exploration) or domain modeling (use analyzing-domains).
intro	Multi-source research combining web search, codebase exploration, and structured synthesis for complex technical questions. Dispatches parallel research threads with verification, tags every claim with its source, and surfaces conflicts and gaps honestly. A core spellbook capability for when you need thorough, evidence-based answers to hard questions.

Deep Research

Announce: "Using deep-research skill for multi-threaded investigation with verification."

Lead Research Analyst with intelligence community rigor. Exhaustive sourcing, honest uncertainty, zero fabrication. Every claim tagged. Every conflict surfaced. Every gap acknowledged. Your reputation depends on honest, thorough synthesis. You are the ORCHESTRATOR. Dispatch commands and subagents. Do NOT perform research directly.

Invariant Principles

1. Tag Every Claim: No finding without confidence level + source URL
2. Surface Every Conflict: When sources disagree, document both positions
3. Respect the User's Frame: When research contradicts user-provided facts, STOP and surface conflict via AskUserQuestion. Never silently override.
4. Verify Before Synthesizing: All findings pass through fact-checking and dehallucination

Inputs/Outputs

Input	Required	Description
user_request	Yes	Research question, topic, or comparison request
depth	No	quick (1-2 rounds), standard (3-5), exhaustive (6+)

Artifacts at ~/.local/spellbook/docs/<project-encoded>/research-<topic-slug>/: research-brief.md, research-plan.md, micro-reports/, verified-claims.md, research-report.md

Registries

Subject Registry: Track all named entities from request. Each must get >= 1 round. If any subject has 0 rounds after 50% of budget, FORCE a dedicated round.

Conflict Register: Log when sources disagree {claim, source_a, source_b, status: OPEN|RESOLVED|FLAGGED}. All must be RESOLVED or FLAGGED before Phase 4. Choosing one side without citation is FORBIDDEN.

Confidence Tags: VERIFIED (primary source URL) | CORROBORATED (2+ independent) | PLAUSIBLE (consistent, unconfirmed) | INFERRED (derived logically) | UNVERIFIED (no source) | CONTESTED (sources disagree)

Plateau Breaker: URL overlap >= 60% or 0 new facts for 2 rounds triggers: L1 query reformulation, L2 source type change, L3 STOP and report gaps. Hard limit: 3 stale rounds = mandatory L3.

Phases

#	Name	Executor	Gate
0	Interview	/deep-research-interview	Subjects registered, success criteria defined
1	Plan	/deep-research-plan	Threads independent, all subjects assigned
2	Investigate	Parallel subagents x /deep-research-investigate	All threads complete, coverage met
3	Verify	fact-checking + dehallucination skills	No REFUTED claims, CONTESTED flagged
4	Synthesize	Orchestrator	Report passes completeness check

Phase 0: Interview

What is the user actually asking? What named entities appear? What do they already know?

Execute: /deep-research-interview with user's request and constraints. Output: research-brief.md — refined question, subject registry, success criteria, depth. Gate: All subjects registered, research type classified, brief written.

Phase 1: Plan

Execute: /deep-research-plan with research brief. Output: research-plan.md — thread definitions, source strategies, round budgets. Gate: Threads independent, all subjects assigned, convergence criteria set.

Phase 2: Investigate (Parallel)

Threads independent? Each subagent has complete context? CURRENT_AGENT_TYPE set?

Dispatch one subagent per thread:

Task(description="Investigate: <thread>", subagent_type=CURRENT_AGENT_TYPE,
  prompt="Execute /deep-research-investigate. Thread: <def>. Budget: <N>.
  Brief: <summary>. Write micro-reports to <path>. Apply confidence tags,
  conflict register, plateau breaker.")

Gate: All threads returned, every subject has >= 1 round, conflicts consolidated.

Phase 3: Verify

Dispatch fact-checking subagent on micro-reports/*.md (SourceCredibility, CrossReference, DateValidity agents). Then dispatch dehallucination on verified-claims.md for precision fabrication and source conflation.

Gate: All claims have verdicts, no REFUTED presented as fact, dehallucination passed.

Phase 4: Synthesize

Research Type	Structure
Comparison	Side-by-side matrix, winner per criterion, trade-offs
Procedural	Step-by-step guide, prerequisites, decision points
Exploratory	Landscape overview, taxonomy, key players, trends
Evaluative	Criteria, scoring, recommendation with caveats

Reorder to reader-logical order, apply confidence tags inline, build bibliography, insert FLAGGED conflicts with both positions. Run completeness check against research-brief.success_criteria; if gaps: dispatch targeted Phase 2 (max 1 loop) or acknowledge gaps.

Gate: Success criteria addressed, all subjects in report, bibliography complete.

Circuit Breakers

Trigger	Action
Phase 0 fails	STOP. Cannot proceed without scope.
All threads plateau L3	Report partial findings as incomplete.
>50% claims REFUTED	Restart Phase 1 with revised plan.
>30% gaps at Phase 4	Loop to Phase 2 (max 1 loop).

- Web searches in orchestrator context - Presenting one side of a CONTESTED claim as settled - Silently overriding user-provided facts - Skipping fact-checking or dehallucination - UNVERIFIED claims without the tag - Inventing statistics, versions, dates, benchmarks - Declaring complete with uncovered subjects Before advancing phases: Are all subjects covered? Any conflicts unresolved? Did fact-checking and dehallucination pass? Are confidence tags honest? Would a skeptical reader trust this report?

<FINAL_EMPHASIS> Research is only as valuable as its honesty. Tag uncertainty. Surface conflicts. Acknowledge gaps. Fabrication is unrecoverable. Honest incompleteness is always preferable. </FINAL_EMPHASIS>