name: research description: Structured research methodology with scoping, multi-source collection, triangulation, source credibility scoring, and anti-hallucination guards. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, evaluating libraries, exploring unfamiliar codebases, or producing research reports. metadata: version: "1.0" allowed-tools: WebSearch WebFetch Read Grep Glob

Research

Decision Tree

Research request → What depth?
    ├─ Lookup (simple fact, quick answer) → 3-5 sources, skip to Collect + Deliver
    ├─ Synthesis (compare options, summarize topic) → 8-12 sources, all 5 phases
    ├─ Analysis (architecture decision, tech evaluation) → 12-15 sources, all 5 phases + recommendation
    └─ Investigation (novel/complex, no obvious answer) → 15+ sources, all 5 phases + multiple rounds

Phases

Phase 1: Scope → Phase 2: Collect → Phase 3: Validate → Phase 4: Synthesize → Phase 5: Deliver

Phase 1: Scope

Before searching, define the boundaries:

Core question — What specifically are we trying to answer?
Depth level — Lookup / Synthesis / Analysis / Investigation
Search strategy — Keywords, year constraints, domain restrictions
Success criteria — What would a good answer look like?

Phase 2: Collect

Execute multi-angle searches. Don't just search once — approach the topic from multiple directions:

Search Angle	Example Query Modifier
Factual	"what is [topic]"
Comparative	"[topic] vs [alternative]"
Technical	"[topic] architecture implementation"
Practical	"[topic] production experience lessons learned"
Recent	"[topic] 2026" or "[topic] latest"
Critical	"[topic] problems limitations drawbacks"

Source diversity required:

Official documentation (most authoritative)
Official blogs and announcements
Independent technical analysis
Community discussions (GitHub issues, forums)
Academic papers (for foundational claims)

Parallel searches: Execute 3-5 searches simultaneously when tools support it.

Phase 3: Validate

Every claim needs triangulation:

Claim from Source A → Find Source B that independently confirms or contradicts
    ├─ Confirmed by 2+ sources → High confidence
    ├─ Contradicted → Note conflict, investigate why
    └─ Only one source → Flag as unverified, note in output

Source chain: Official docs → Independent analysis → Community verification

URL validation: Check that every cited link is accessible before including it.

Phase 4: Synthesize

Score and weight sources using:

Factor	Weight	High Score	Low Score
Authority	30%	Official docs, core maintainer	Random blog, no credentials
Recency	25%	Current year, last 12 months	3+ years old
Specificity	25%	Directly answers the question	Tangentially related
Independence	20%	No vendor affiliation	Vendor marketing material

Conflict resolution:

Prefer official documentation
Check publication dates (newer often supersedes)
Note the disagreement explicitly
Present both perspectives if unresolved

Phase 5: Deliver

Output structure (scale to depth):

Depth	Output Format
Lookup	1-2 paragraphs + sources
Synthesis	Sections with comparison table + sources
Analysis	Executive summary + detailed sections + recommendation + sources
Investigation	Full report with findings, methodology, limitations, sources

Every deliverable must include:

Inline citations [Source Name](url) for all claims
Sources section at the end with all referenced URLs
Confidence indicators for uncertain claims
Date of research (findings may become outdated)

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Fix
Single-source claims	Triangulate with 2+ independent sources
Hallucinated citations	Never fabricate URLs — only cite pages you actually fetched
Vendor benchmarks as neutral	Explicitly note source bias
Overly broad queries	Focus each query on a single specific aspect
Missing recency	Add current year to search queries
Shallow exploration	Read 10+ sources, not just the first 1-2 results
No conflict disclosure	Always note when sources disagree
Broken links in report	Validate every URL before including
Assuming first result is best	Check multiple results, compare quality
Skipping the scope phase	Always define what "done" looks like before searching

For detailed source evaluation criteria see:

Source evaluation reference

Name	research
Description	Structured research methodology with scoping, multi-source collection, triangulation, source credibility scoring, and anti-hallucination guards. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, evaluating libraries, exploring unfamiliar codebases, or producing research reports.

research

SKILL.md