research-orchestrator-v2

name

research-orchestrator-v2

description

Plan and execute deep research with explicit scoping, light-search-first planning, source-tiering, role-based parallel decomposition, red-team verification, and decision-ready synthesis. Use when the user asks for deep research, broad investigation, multi-round search, landscape mapping, competitor analysis, technical diligence, executive briefs, recommendation support, plan-first research, or work that should benefit from subagents instead of a one-shot answer.

Research Orchestrator V2

Run research as a staged system, not a single long answer. Optimize for decision usefulness, evidence quality, contradiction-finding, and reusable outputs.

1. Frame before searching hard

Before heavy research, lock five things:

• the real decision or downstream use
• target audience and output shape
• in-scope vs out-of-scope boundaries
• key unknowns / subquestions
• whether this is narrow enough for one thread or broad enough for parallel lanes

If the request is underspecified, ask a small number of high-leverage questions. If it is clear enough, proceed.

2. Do a light search before committing to a plan

Never produce a blind research plan.

Use a quick first pass to identify:

• canonical names, aliases, and keywords
• likely Tier 1 sources
• obvious comparison targets
• moving parts, controversies, or timeline issues
• whether the topic is broad enough to justify subagents

Then present a short plan unless the user clearly asked to skip straight to execution.

If you need mode guidance or a planning template, read references/research-modes.md and references/research-plan-template.md.

3. Choose the right research mode

Use one dominant mode:

• exploration: map the space before judging
• decision-support: help choose, compare, or recommend
• executive-brief: compress into a leader-ready brief
• technical-due-diligence: test technical substance, benchmarks, and risk

Infer the mode from downstream use, not surface wording.

4. Split by role, not by arbitrary parallelism

When the task is broad, high-stakes, or explicitly deep, use role-based decomposition.

Default lanes:

1. planner — frame, split, and define success criteria
2. primary-source scout — collect Tier 1 evidence and canonical artifacts
3. domain lane(s) — investigate distinct dimensions such as architecture, product, market, adoption, GTM, or ecosystem
4. skeptic / red-team — look for contradictions, missing baselines, adverse evidence, or stale claims
5. synthesizer — merge, judge, classify uncertainty, and produce the final deliverable

Do not spawn multiple agents that all search the same angle with slightly different wording.

If needed, read references/multi-agent-topologies.md.

5. Use source tiers deliberately

Classify evidence while researching and again while writing:

• Tier 1: official docs, papers, repos, benchmarks, filings, launch posts, source code, vendor docs
• Tier 2: credible technical blogs, industry analysis, strong media coverage, expert writeups
• Tier 3: community discussion, social posts, anecdotal operator reports

Rules:

• anchor factual claims in Tier 1 whenever possible
• use Tier 2 to contextualize and compare
• use Tier 3 for sentiment, practitioner signal, and hypothesis generation
• do not let Tier 3 dominate a serious memo unless the topic itself is community sentiment

If needed, read references/evidence-and-output-rules.md.

6. Require a red-team pass for serious work

For any nontrivial memo, explicitly search for:

• contradictory evidence
• benchmark or demo inflation
• outdated claims
• missing baselines
• deployment friction
• weak adoption evidence
• reasons the obvious conclusion might be wrong

If evidence conflicts, preserve the disagreement. Do not force fake certainty.

7. Separate facts, inferences, and judgments

In the final synthesis, distinguish:

• facts — directly supported by sources
• inferences — conclusions derived from evidence
• judgments — recommendations, bets, or strategic interpretation

Add confidence levels when useful.

8. Tailor the final output to the real use

Prefer decision-ready structure over raw notes.

Common sections:

• executive summary
• task framing and scope
• key findings
• comparison matrix or dimension table
• disagreements / uncertainty
• confidence levels
• implications / recommendations
• next-step research lanes

Mode emphasis:

• exploration -> taxonomy, landscape map, open questions, follow-up lanes
• decision-support -> recommendation, tradeoffs, risks, action options
• executive-brief -> 3-7 key judgments, concise evidence bullets, next actions
• technical-due-diligence -> architecture, evidence quality, benchmark scrutiny, technical risks, unknowns

If needed, read references/output-shapes.md.

9. When not to use this skill

Do not use this skill for:

• a narrow factual lookup answerable from 1-3 sources
• summarizing one article or one PDF without broader research intent
• lightweight brainstorming with no evidence requirement
• simple web search where no staged workflow is needed

10. Prompt shaping pattern

When reformulating the task, try to make these fields explicit:

• subject
• objective
• audience
• output format
• scope constraints
• source preferences
• whether subagents are warranted
• required skepticism / verification level

If useful, read references/research-plan-template.md for a reusable plan shape.