report-findings

# 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| Q&A sites, blogs, wikis, anecdotal evidence | Workarounds, pitfalls | | **4: Unverified** | 0-50% | Unattributed, outdated, content farms, unchecked AI | Initial leads only | See [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) for detailed assessment criteria.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](references/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: ```markdown ## 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](references/output-template.md) for full template with guidelines. </output_format> <rules> 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 </rules> <references> - [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) — detailed authority assessment - [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) — comparison templates - [output-template.md](references/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. </references>