Web Research

Turn a sharp research question into cited, gap-flagged findings by delegating to parallel web-search subagents.

The deliverable is always on disk: a written plan the caller can review, one findings file per subtopic, and a synthesized report with numbered citations. Nothing returns as inline prose, and no claim ships without a URL + title + verbatim excerpt behind it.

When to use

A user asks for web research on a topic — "research X", "look up sources for Y", "gather evidence on Z".
Another beagle skill invokes this one programmatically as a research companion (see references/companion-contract.md).
The caller wants auditable output: a plan the user approved, findings files per subtopic, and a citation-backed synthesis.

When NOT to use

Codebase lookups ("where is this function defined", "search the repo"). Use Grep/Glob.
Local file search or document extraction. Use the file tools or artifact-analysis.
Comparative evaluation of two implementations. Use llm-judge.
Paywalled or authentication-gated scraping. Out of scope — ask the caller to paste extracted content instead.
Reshaping or coaching the research question. That is the caller's job; this skill treats the incoming question as final.

Workflow

Four steps, in order. No step is skippable.

Write plan.md — main question verbatim, 1-5 non-overlapping subtopics, what each subtopic should establish, and how the findings will be synthesized.
Plan review gate — show the plan to the user for confirmation. Skipped only when the caller passes auto_proceed: true.
Dispatch subagents and synthesize — spawn up to 3 concurrent subagents (one per subtopic), wait for all to return, then write report.md.
Verify before returning — run the verification checklist in references/failure-modes.md to confirm all expected artifacts exist and are well-formed. Any check that fails becomes an entry in Gaps & Limitations.

Receive question ──→ Write plan.md ──→ Review gate (unless auto_proceed)
                                      ↓
                                    User confirms
                                      ↓
                                    Dispatch subagents (up to 3 parallel)
                                      ↓
                                    Collect findings/<slug>.md files
                                      ↓
                                    Synthesize report.md
                                      ↓
                                    Return paths to caller

Before step 1, verify the environment has WebSearch (or equivalent). WebFetch is desirable for subagents that need full-page content beyond search snippets, but not required — WebSearch-only environments can still produce useful findings. If WebSearch is absent, fail fast per references/failure-modes.md — do not create plan.md, do not spawn subagents.

Inputs

The input contract is small and strict:

Field	Type	Required	Default	Purpose
`research_question`	string	yes	—	The question to answer, already distilled. The skill does not reshape it.
`output_dir`	absolute path	no	derived	Where plan.md, findings/, and report.md land.
`auto_proceed`	bool	no	`false`	When true, skip the plan review gate and dispatch immediately.
`refresh`	bool	no	`false`	When true, allow overwriting a prior run in the same `output_dir`.

The skill does not parse caller-specific structures. Callers distill their brief into one sharp question string before invoking.

When to pass auto_proceed: true vs false. Pass false (the default) when the user will still benefit from seeing the subtopic plan before searches burn — e.g. the caller wants this skill's plan-review gate to serve as that check. Pass true when the caller has already satisfied the "is this the right framing" question through its own interaction with the user, and another gate would just be friction — e.g. the user explicitly asked mid-conversation for background research, or the caller runs its own review loop upstream. The rule is about where the review happens, not whether it happens.

Output location

If the caller provides output_dir, use it verbatim. Otherwise derive the default:

.beagle/research/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<topic-kebab>/

Slug derivation (stable so re-running the same question on the same day lands on the same folder):

Take the research question.
Lowercase.
Strip punctuation (keep letters, digits, spaces, hyphens).
Collapse runs of whitespace to single hyphens.
Truncate to 60 characters on a word boundary (cut at the last hyphen before 60). If there is no hyphen before position 60, hard-cut at 60.
Prepend YYYY-MM-DD-.

Re-run protection. Before writing anything, check whether output_dir already contains plan.md or report.md. If it does and refresh is not true, refuse with a message naming the existing folder. When refresh: true, archive the prior contents into <output_dir>/.archive-<timestamp>/ first, then start fresh. See references/failure-modes.md and references/companion-contract.md.

Every run lands in its own folder so callers weeks later can re-read the plan, findings, and report without re-running the skill.

The research plan (`plan.md`)

The plan is written before any subagents run and is the caller's chance to catch bad framing before searches burn.

plan.md contains:

Research question — the input string, verbatim.
Subtopics — 1 to 5, non-overlapping, each with a one-line name.
What each subtopic should establish — concrete bullets, not "research everything about X".
Synthesis approach — how the subtopics' findings will combine into report.md.
Budget — how many subagents will spawn and how many searches each has (see Budget defaults below).

Plan review gate. By default, show plan.md to the user and wait for confirmation before dispatching. The user can revise subtopics, add or remove them, or reject the framing entirely. When the caller passes auto_proceed: true, skip the gate and dispatch immediately — this is the programmatic-companion path where the caller has its own review loop.

Subagent dispatch

Up to 3 subagents run concurrently. Each gets a mechanically-derived brief built from plan.md — no interpretation drift between the plan the user approved and the briefs the subagents received. The brief template lives in references/subagent-brief.md.

Each subagent:

Runs its budgeted web searches (3-5 by default).
Writes findings/<subtopic-slug>.md under output_dir.
Returns one terse status line to the orchestrator (path + status), never inline findings.

The orchestrator waits for all subagents to finish, then verifies every expected findings file exists before moving to synthesis. A missing file is a silent failure, recorded in Gaps & Limitations — see references/failure-modes.md.

See references/subagent-brief.md for the full brief shape and the required frontmatter on each findings file.

Citations

Every claim in a findings file and in report.md carries a citation. The shape is documented in references/citation-schema.md. At a glance:

Required fields: url, title, excerpt (verbatim quote from the page).
Optional fields: retrieved_at (ISO date), source_type (official-docs / vendor / blog / forum / news / other).
Never synthesize missing metadata. If the subagent does not have a retrieval date, omit the field — do not fabricate one.

Inline references use [^n] footnotes; the full citation sits in the numbered Sources section at the bottom of the report.

Synthesis (`report.md`)

The report has a fixed four-section layout, in this order. Every section is required, every time.

## TL;DR — 3-5 bullets capturing the highest-signal findings.
## Findings — organized by subtopic or theme; every claim carries a [^n] footnote.
## Gaps & Limitations — what the research could not establish, including any failed subagents.
## Sources — numbered bibliography matching footnote numbers.

Gaps & Limitations is required even when findings look complete. Honest accounting of what was and was not verifiable is part of the product. The full literal skeleton the skill copies from lives in references/report-template.md.

Failure modes

Partial success — one or more subagents fail. The skill continues with what succeeded and enumerates each failed subtopic under Gaps & Limitations, including the last-known brief and the stub-file reason. The run does not abort.
Fail-fast — web tools entirely unavailable. The skill verifies WebSearch and WebFetch before spawning any subagent. If either is absent, it aborts before writing plan.md and returns a structured error the caller can catch.
Silent-failure detection — every subagent writes at least a stub findings/<slug>.md with status: frontmatter (ok, empty, failed) before returning. Missing file after dispatch = silent failure, recorded in Gaps & Limitations.
Re-run protection — covered under "Output location" above; details in references/failure-modes.md.

Full rules and the structured error shape live in references/failure-modes.md.

Budget defaults

Tunable knobs, not hard-coded invariants:

Knob	Default
Subtopics per run	1-5
Parallel subagents	up to 3
Web searches per subagent	3-5

A caller that needs broader or narrower scope can override via the brief. The plan-review gate is the right place to adjust before searches burn.

Companion invocation contract

Other beagle skills invoke this one via a small, documented contract. The minimal call passes only research_question; the full call adds output_dir, auto_proceed, and refresh.

Worked examples for the three known callers (prfaq-beagle, brainstorm-beagle, strategy-interview) plus the success and fail-fast return shapes live in references/companion-contract.md. Callers are expected to honor the contract verbatim rather than invent parallel invocation styles.

Tone

This skill is a tone-neutral primitive. It does not:

Coach the caller on whether the question is the right one.
Reshape, sharpen, or challenge the research question.
Adopt a posture (hardcore, Socratic, warm) — that is the caller's job.
Editorialize in findings or the report.

If the caller is a coaching skill (prfaq-beagle, brainstorm-beagle), the coaching happens before and after this skill runs. Inside this skill, the question is treated as final.

Out of scope

Long-running or scheduled research jobs.
LLM-as-judge evaluation of source credibility — llm-judge already covers comparative evaluation.
Scraping paywalled or authentication-gated sources.
Coaching, challenge, or opinionated reshaping of the research question.
Multi-language research.
Caching or de-duplication of findings across invocations.
Non-web research modes (local files, project docs, databases) — use artifact-analysis.

Reference files

references/subagent-brief.md — template the orchestrator mechanically fills from plan.md when dispatching each subagent.
references/citation-schema.md — required and optional citation fields, footnote convention, and a well-formed example.
references/report-template.md — literal report.md skeleton with all four fixed sections.
references/failure-modes.md — partial-success, fail-fast, silent-failure detection, and re-run protection rules.
references/companion-contract.md — programmatic invocation shape with worked examples for prfaq-beagle, brainstorm-beagle, and strategy-interview.

web-research