research-web

User request: $ARGUMENTS

Comprehensive multi-wave web research. Strategically selects sources, evaluates credibility, cross-references findings, and synthesizes actionable recommendations.

Research log: /tmp/research-web-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}-{topic-kebab-case}.md - external memory for all findings.

Phase 1: Research Planning

1.1 Parse Request

Extract from $ARGUMENTS:

• Primary question: What are we trying to learn?
• Context: Why do we need this? What decision does it inform?
• Constraints: Version requirements, platform limitations, etc.

If vague or empty: Ask user to clarify the specific question.

1.2 Create Research Log

Path: /tmp/research-web-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}-{topic-kebab-case}.md

# Web Research: {topic}
Started: {timestamp}

## Research Question
{Primary question}

## Context
{Why needed, what decision it informs}

## Initial Hypotheses
(populated in 1.3)

## Wave Results
(populated during research)

## Source Registry
(populated during research)

## Conflicts
(populated when sources disagree)

## Synthesis
(populated in Phase 4)

1.3 Form Initial Hypotheses

Before searching, document what you expect to find:

## Initial Hypotheses

### H1: {Expected answer}
- Confidence: Low | Medium | High
- Would falsify: {what would prove this wrong}

### H2: {Alternative possibility}
- Confidence: Low | Medium | High
- Would falsify: {what would prove this wrong}

Why hypotheses first: Prevents confirmation bias. Search for evidence both supporting AND refuting.

1.4 Create Todo List

- [ ] Wave 1: Official documentation
- [ ] Wave 2: Community resources
- [ ] Wave 3: Advanced/specialized sources
- [ ] Cross-reference and resolve conflicts
- [ ] Synthesize findings

Phase 2: Strategic Wave Research

Wave Selection Strategy

Wave	Source Type	Purpose	When to Use
1	Official docs, GitHub repos	Canonical behavior, API specs	Always start here
2	Stack Overflow, tutorials, blogs	Practical examples, common issues	After official gaps identified
3	Academic papers, expert blogs, niche forums	Edge cases, advanced techniques	When waves 1-2 insufficient

2.1 Wave 1: Official Sources

Priority sources:

1. Official documentation sites
2. GitHub repositories (README, docs/, wiki)
3. Official API references
4. Release notes and changelogs

Search queries:

• {topic} official documentation
• {topic} github
• {technology} {feature} docs

Document each source:

### Source: {title}
**URL**: {url}
**Type**: Official Documentation | GitHub | API Reference
**Date**: {publication/update date}
**Credibility**: High (official)

**Key findings**:
- {Finding 1}
- {Finding 2}

**Evidence**:
> "{Relevant quote}"

**Supports/Refutes**: H1, H2

2.2 Wave 2: Community Resources

Priority sources:

1. Stack Overflow (recent, accepted answers)
2. Technical blogs (reputable authors)
3. Tutorial sites
4. Discussion forums

Search queries:

• {topic} example
• {topic} tutorial
• {topic} best practices
• {technology} {error message} (if troubleshooting)

Credibility indicators:

• High: Accepted answer, author is maintainer/contributor, multiple upvotes
• Medium: Popular answer, detailed explanation, includes code
• Low: Old answer, no engagement, no sources

2.3 Wave 3: Advanced Sources

Only proceed if waves 1-2 leave gaps.

Sources:

• Academic papers (for algorithms, protocols)
• Expert technical blogs
• Conference talks
• Specialized forums/communities
• Source code analysis

Search queries:

• {topic} paper
• {topic} deep dive
• {topic} internals

Phase 3: Research Loop

Memento Loop

For each wave:

1. Mark wave todo in_progress
2. Execute searches
3. Evaluate and document each source
4. Write findings immediately to research log
5. Update hypothesis status
6. Mark wave todo completed
7. Decide: proceed to next wave or sufficient?

NEVER proceed without writing findings — research log is external memory.

3.1 Source Credibility Evaluation

For each source, assess:

Factor	High	Medium	Low
Authority	Official, maintainer	Expert, educator	Anonymous, unknown
Recency	<6 months	<2 years	>2 years
Verification	Multiple sources agree	Some corroboration	Single source
Depth	Shows understanding	Practical focus	Surface level

3.2 Update Hypotheses

As findings come in:

### H1: {hypothesis}
- Status: CONFIRMED | REFUTED | UNCERTAIN
- Confidence: Low | Medium | High
- Evidence: {summary}
- Sources: {list}

3.3 Handle Conflicts

When sources disagree:

## Conflicts

### {Topic of disagreement}
**Position A**: {claim}
- Sources: {list}
- Strength: {why credible}

**Position B**: {claim}
- Sources: {list}
- Strength: {why credible}

**Resolution**:
- {Your assessment based on source authority, recency, consensus}
- OR "Unresolved - present both options to user"

Conflict resolution priority:

1. Official docs > community
2. Recent > old
3. Multiple sources > single source
4. Code/specs > opinions

3.4 Wave Completion Criteria

Stop wave when:

• Primary question answered with high confidence
• Multiple authoritative sources agree
• Diminishing returns (same info repeating)

Proceed to next wave when:

• Gaps remain in understanding
• Only low-credibility sources found
• Conflicting information needs resolution

Phase 4: Synthesis

4.1 Refresh Context

Read the full research log before synthesizing.

4.2 Cross-Reference Findings

Verify key claims appear in multiple independent sources:

## Cross-Reference Matrix

| Finding | Official | Community | Expert |
|---------|----------|-----------|--------|
| {Finding 1} | ✓ source | ✓ source | - |
| {Finding 2} | ✓ source | ✓ source | ✓ source |
| {Finding 3} | - | ✓ source | - |

4.3 Write Synthesis

## Synthesis

### Answer to Primary Question
{Direct answer}
**Confidence**: High | Medium | Low
**Based on**: {N} sources, {consensus level}

### Key Findings
1. {Finding with source citations}
2. {Finding with source citations}
3. {Finding with source citations}

### Hypothesis Resolution
- H1: {CONFIRMED/REFUTED} — {evidence}
- H2: {CONFIRMED/REFUTED} — {evidence}

### Caveats and Limitations
- {What we couldn't verify}
- {Where information was sparse}
- {Time-sensitivity concerns}

### Recommendations
1. {Primary recommendation with rationale}
2. {Alternative approach and when to use}
3. {What to avoid and why}

### Sources by Authority

**Official**:
- {Source with URL}

**Community (High credibility)**:
- {Source with URL}

**Other**:
- {Source with URL}

4.4 Present Summary

## Research Complete

**Question**: {Primary question}
**Confidence**: High | Medium | Low
**Waves completed**: {N}
**Sources consulted**: {N}

### Answer
{Concise direct answer}

### Key Findings
- {Finding 1}
- {Finding 2}
- {Finding 3}

### Recommendations
1. {What to do}
2. {What to avoid}

### Caveats
- {Key limitation}

### Top Sources
- {Most authoritative source}
- {Second source}

**Full research log**: /tmp/research-web-{...}.md

Guidelines

DO

• Document hypotheses BEFORE searching
• Record ALL sources, even unhelpful ones
• Note publication dates
• Cross-reference important claims
• Acknowledge uncertainty
• Update log after EACH source

DON'T

• Trust single sources for important claims
• Ignore publication dates
• Present opinions as facts
• Skip synthesis step
• Make claims without citations
• Cherry-pick confirming sources

Source Authority Hierarchy

1. Official docs — How things are supposed to work
2. Source code — How things actually work
3. GitHub issues — Real problems and workarounds
4. Stack Overflow — Community solutions (CHECK DATES!)
5. Technical blogs — Opinions and tutorials (verify claims)
6. General articles — Background only

Time Sensitivity

Domain	Information Half-life
Web frameworks	6-12 months
Languages	1-2 years
CS fundamentals	5+ years
Security	3-6 months
Cloud services	6-12 months

Always note when information might be outdated.

Edge Cases

Case	Action
No relevant sources	Note in log, ask user for alternative terms
All sources outdated	Note prominently, recommend verifying with latest docs
Conflicting authoritative sources	Present both with evidence, let user decide
Topic too broad	Ask user to narrow scope
Paywalled content	Note limitation, search for alternatives