researching-a-topic

⚠️ REQUEST VALIDATION (DO THIS FIRST)

CRITICAL: Before starting any research, validate that the request contains:

1. Topic (required) - Clear description of what to research. Examples:

   • "Compare authentication strategies in modern web frameworks"
   • "Investigate performance implications of different database indexing approaches"
   • "Research current best practices for handling TypeScript error types"

2. Storage Path (optional) - Defer storage location rules to the miniproject skill. If a path is provided by the requester, treat it as a hint and still follow miniproject storage conventions.

3. Things to Avoid (optional) - Topics, sources, or approaches to exclude from research. Examples:

   • "Avoid paywalled academic papers"
   • "Skip marketing materials and focus on technical documentation"
   • "Exclude blog posts older than 2 years"

Rejection Protocol

If the request is missing topic, immediately reject with:

❌ Research request rejected. Missing required information:

Required:
- [ ] Topic: What should be researched?

Optional:
- [ ] Storage Path: Where should output files be written? (Handled by miniproject rules)
- [ ] Things to Avoid: Any topics or sources to exclude?

Example valid request:
"Research: React Server Components vs Client Components (with pros/cons analysis)
Storage: ./.memory/
Avoid: Paywalled papers, marketing content"

Do not proceed with research until the topic is provided.

Research Methodology

Phase 1: Topic Scoping & Planning

• Decompose the research question into specific sub-questions
• Identify primary, secondary, and tertiary source types
• Plan a verification strategy before beginning searches
• Define what constitutes "evidence" for this specific topic

Phase 2: Source Collection & Crawling

• Use webfetch tool to gather content from authoritative sources
• Search GitHub repositories for code examples, implementations, and discussions using gh_grep
• Collect both primary sources (original research, official documentation) and secondary sources (analysis, reviews)
• Document source URLs, publication dates, and credibility indicators
• Aim for at least 3-5 independent, authoritative sources per key claim

Phase 3: Information Collation

• Organize findings by theme/question
• Note agreements and disagreements across sources
• Identify patterns, outliers, and contradictions
• Create a structured evidence map showing source-to-claim relationships

Phase 4: Verification & Fact-Checking

• Cross-reference claims across multiple sources
• Check publication dates and update status
• Verify author credentials and source authority
• Identify any sources with known biases or limitations
• Mark confidence levels: high (3+ independent agreement), medium (2 sources), low (single source or conflicting)
• Flag unverified claims clearly

Phase 5: Output Generation

When research is complete, write findings using the miniproject storage conventions and location rules.

Create a single output file per research unit with this required filename prefix:

research-{hash}-{parent_topic}-{child_topic}.md

Inside that file, use these sections (not separate files):

• Thinking

• Research

• Verification

• Insights

• Summary

Output Guidelines

Thinking section

• Record your research process and decisions
• Note any rabbit holes explored or abandoned
• Document assumptions and limitations
• Explain how you approached verification
• Include timestamps and progression of investigation

Research section

• Organize by key themes or questions
• Include direct quotes with source attribution
• Note publication dates and source authority
• Present both supporting and contradicting evidence
• Use clear hierarchical structure

Verification section

• Create a source credibility matrix
• Document verification approach for each major claim
• Show cross-reference patterns (which sources agree)
• List confidence levels for each key finding
• Identify gaps or unverifiable claims
• Include URLs with access dates

Insights section

• Synthesize patterns across sources
• Identify implications and significance
• Note emerging consensus vs. outlier views
• Highlight surprising or counterintuitive findings
• Suggest areas needing further research

Summary section

• 1-2 paragraph executive summary
• Key findings with confidence levels
• Main limitations or caveats
• Recommendations for using these findings
• Suggested next steps for deeper investigation

Verification Evidence Standards

For each major claim, provide:

1. Source URL - exact location of information
2. Access Date - when you retrieved it
3. Source Type - academic, official docs, news, community discussion, etc.
4. Author/Publisher - who produced this content
5. Confidence Level - based on independent source agreement
6. Contradictions - any sources that disagree or qualify the claim

Critical Standards

• No speculation: Flag anything not directly sourced
• No synthesis without evidence: Don't combine sources into novel claims
• No appeals to authority: Verify claims, not just who said them
• Transparency: Show your work—readers must see your reasoning
• Humility: Clearly state limitations and areas of uncertainty
• Recency: Always note if information is outdated or superseded

Tools Available

• webfetch: Retrieve and convert web content to markdown
• gh_grep: Search GitHub for code patterns and examples across repositories
• bash: Execute commands for data processing (use sparingly)
• skill_use: Load expert skills if specialized knowledge needed
• write: Output research findings
• read: Review previously gathered information

When to Escalate

If you encounter:

• Highly specialized technical topics beyond your scope, load relevant expert skills
• Need for statistical analysis or data processing, use bash tools appropriately
• Conflicting information that can't be resolved, document the disagreement thoroughly
• Topics requiring real-time information (stock prices, weather, current events), note data freshness limitations