| name | general-research-loop |
| description | Use when doing serious research on any topic - chains literature scan, parallel research, structured review, and citation verification |
| kind | workflow |
| audience | anyone |
| ai-tools | any |
| complexity | chained |
| time | 1-3 days |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| source | bundled |
| composes | ["literature-scan","researching-five-things-in-parallel","structured-literature-review","verifying-before-citing"] |
General Research Loop
What this does
The default chain for serious research on any topic. Runs four bundled spells in sequence: scan the field, parallelize deep-dives on the canonical 5-8 sources, synthesize into a structured review, and verify every citation before publishing. Equivalent in spirit to a discipline-rigorous research workflow.
When to use
- Producing a research output that someone will rely on (memo, paper, brief, decision document)
- The topic is unfamiliar enough that you need to map it before deep-diving
- The output is for an audience who can check your sources
Do not use when
- A 30-minute read of one canonical source is enough — just read it
- You're already an expert on this topic — go straight to writing
- The decision deadline is in hours — use a faster, less rigorous flow
What you bring (Inputs)
- Research question (one sentence)
- Audience and depth target (memo / paper / brief)
- Time budget
- Source-access constraints (what databases, what languages)
What you get (Output)
A verified, structured research document: scope, methods, themes, evidence, gaps, and a bibliography where every citation has been opened.
How it works (Steps)
This is a chain of 4 spells. Each stage hands an artifact to the next.
Stages
Stage 1: Map the field (literature-scan)
- Skill:
literature-scan
- Input: research question
- Output handoff: a one-page brief identifying the canonical 5-10 sources and the major positions
- Gate: at least 5 sources identified; positions are distinct
Stage 2: Deep-dive in parallel (researching-five-things-in-parallel)
- Skill:
researching-five-things-in-parallel
- Input: the 5-8 canonical sources from Stage 1, with the same per-source extraction prompt (research question, method, finding, limitation, your one-line summary)
- Output handoff: a structured table of source-level extracts plus a compare section
- Gate: every source has a complete row; low-confidence entries are flagged for re-run
Stage 3: Synthesize (structured-literature-review, partial)
- Skill:
structured-literature-review — invoked from Stage 5 (Synthesize) onward, since Stages 1-4 of that skill are already done by Stages 1-2 of this chain
- Input: the source extracts from Stage 2
- Output handoff: a draft review with themes, consensus, contestation, and gaps
- Gate: 3-7 themes; each theme supported by 2+ sources
Stage 4: Verify (verifying-before-citing)
- Skill:
verifying-before-citing
- Input: the draft from Stage 3
- Output handoff: a verified final draft where every citation has been opened or explicitly hedged or removed
- Gate: zero unverified citations in the final draft
Checkpoints
- After Stage 1: 5+ canonical sources identified
- After Stage 2: every source has a complete extraction; low-confidence flagged
- After Stage 3: 3-7 themes, each supported by 2+ sources
- After Stage 4: zero unverified citations remain in the final draft
Loop-back conditions
- Stage 1 returns < 5 sources: scope too narrow → revise question, restart Stage 1
- Stage 2 returns ≥ 2 low-confidence entries: re-run those subagents with refined inputs before proceeding
- Stage 3 finds < 3 themes: under-extraction → return to Stage 2 with deeper extraction prompts
- Stage 4 finds repeated misattributions in the AI-generated draft: do not publish; clean and re-verify
Quality bar
- Every chain stage's gate passed before moving on
- Final draft has a verified bibliography
- Final draft is something you would defend in front of the cited authors
- The chain is reproducible — someone else with your inputs would arrive at a comparable output
Variations
- Quick brief (1 day): cap Stage 1 at 5 sources; cap Stage 3 at 3 themes; skip the compare-section in Stage 2
- Deep review (multi-day): expand Stage 2 to 10+ sources; add a methods section to the final draft
- Updating an existing brief: skip Stage 1; re-run Stage 2 only on new sources since last update; re-synthesize what changed
Example
Input: "Produce a research brief on the effectiveness of carbon border adjustment mechanisms for an executive audience, ~6 pages, this week."
Flow:
- Stage 1 finds 8 canonical sources (3 IMF, 2 academic, 2 policy think tanks, 1 critique) and 3 camps
- Stage 2 dispatches 8 parallel research subagents, returns a comparison table; 1 source flagged for re-run because the data was paywalled — re-run with abstract-only extraction
- Stage 3 synthesizes into 4 themes (effectiveness, equity, design choices, political feasibility)
- Stage 4 verifies 23 citations; 2 quotes hedged because the original source could not be opened in time
Output: 6-page executive brief with verified bibliography.
