deep-research

name

deep-research

description

Use when the user asks you to research a topic and wants thesis-grade synthesis, not a bullet-point summary. Activates on "research X", "deep dive on X", "find out about X", "what's actually known about X". Dispatches depth + breadth + counter-argument subagents concurrently, runs a peer-review pass over their findings for hallucination and citation quality, then synthesizes into a structured report with explicit high-confidence / contested / unknown buckets. Output file optionally persisted to a knowledge vault.

Deep Research

A 4-role, peer-reviewed research pattern that produces thesis-grade output instead of the web-search summary slop that LLMs default to.

When to activate

• User asks "research X", "deep dive on X", "find out about X"
• User says "I want to know what's actually known about X"
• User asks a question where an answer built from one web search or confident-guessing from training data would be dangerous (load-bearing decisions, claims that will be cited, topics where hallucinations are likely)
• A previous conversation surfaced a speculative claim that needs validation before it lands in code or a plan

When NOT to activate

• Quick factual lookups ("what's the latest version of React") — use Context7 or a single web fetch
• Well-known concepts the model already knows cold — answer directly
• Questions about the local codebase — use the Explore agent
• The user wants opinion, not evidence

The four roles

All four are dispatched via the Agent tool with subagent_type: general-purpose. Each role has a distinct prompt shape — do not collapse them.

1. Depth researcher (1 agent)

Goes deep on the PRIMARY question. Multiple web searches + web fetches on the specific topic. Produces a detailed findings dossier with citations for every load-bearing claim.

2. Breadth researcher (1 agent)

Surveys adjacent/related topics, alternative framings, and historical context. Broader search scope, looking for relevance-adjacent material the depth agent might miss. Explicitly asks "what related things should I know to understand this properly?"

3. Counter-argument researcher (1 agent)

Actively searches for contradicting views, cases where the thesis fails, opposing schools of thought, known criticisms. Not "balance" — actively adversarial, looking for holes.

4. Peer reviewer (1 agent, runs AFTER the first three return)

Takes all findings from roles 1-3 and produces a peer-review report:

• Claim → citation mapping (which claims have support, which are bare assertions)
• Internal contradictions between findings
• Claims where multiple sources agree (high-confidence)
• Claims where sources disagree (contested)
• Gaps — things that were researched but no citation was found
• Hallucination risk flags — claims that sound specific but have no citation

Process

1. Brief. Read the user's topic. Extract:
   • The primary question (depth target)
   • 2-4 adjacent topics (breadth targets)
   • 1-2 counter-hypotheses to actively seek (counter targets)
   • Any specific source types to privilege (academic papers, primary sources, industry reports) or exclude (pure marketing content)
2. Dispatch concurrently. In ONE message, send three Agent tool calls (depth + breadth + counter). They run in parallel. Each returns a structured findings dossier.
3. Dispatch peer reviewer with all three dossiers as input.
4. Synthesize (main session, not subagent). Produce the report per the output format below.
5. Persist to the vault if one exists (see "Vault persistence").

See references/subagent-briefs.md for the exact prompt template each role should receive.

Output format

Every deep-research output has the same six-section shape. See references/output-format.md for the full template.

1. Bottom-line-up-front — 2-3 sentences answering the question with an explicit confidence grade.
2. High-confidence findings — claims with multi-source corroboration.
3. Contested claims — where sources disagree; both sides with citations.
4. Unknowns — questions the research did NOT resolve.
5. Follow-up research questions — what to investigate next.
6. Citations — consolidated list, graded by source quality.

Hallucination flags and peer-review notes appear inline next to the specific claim, not in a separate dumping ground. A report that reads clean without any flags is a report the peer-reviewer didn't try hard enough on.

Vault persistence

If the user has an Obsidian-style vault (default path: ~/Documents/Personal Notes/), write the report to 50-References/deep-research-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md and update index.md + log.md per the standard vault-write convention.

If no vault is configured, write to ./research/{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md in the current working directory.

In both cases, report the output path back to the user so they can find it later.

Concurrency rules

• Depth + breadth + counter dispatch IN PARALLEL (single message, 3 tool calls). Do not sequence them.
• Peer reviewer runs AFTER, sequentially. It needs the first three's outputs as input.
• Maximum 3 concurrent subagents at the research stage. Do not expand.
• Max 1 deep-research invocation at a time per session — if the user asks for two topics, do them sequentially.

Known failure modes

See references/failure-modes.md for details. Headline list:

1. LLM-marketing-content swamp: web searches on AI/tech topics often return SEO-stuffed blog content. Peer-reviewer must flag claims supported only by such sources as low-grade.
2. Hallucinated paper titles: subagents sometimes cite plausible- sounding papers that don't exist. Peer reviewer verifies at least the top 3 citations by attempting to resolve them.
3. Stale research: on fast-moving topics, research older than 12 months may be obsolete. Peer reviewer calls out date freshness.
4. False balance: equal weight for mainstream + fringe views is wrong when the evidence is asymmetric. Peer reviewer judges weight.
5. Scope creep: subagents drift from the primary question. The brief given to each role must pin scope hard.

What to tell the user on completion

• One-paragraph executive summary (copy from the report's BLUF section)
• Path to the full report
• Any peer-review-flagged items that specifically bear on what they asked (don't swallow contested claims silently)
• A recommended next step based on what the research surfaced

Do not paste the full report inline unless the user asks. The vault (or local file) is the artifact.