Skill: ivangdavila/in-depth-research (version 1.0.0)

--- name: "Deep Research" description: "Conduct exhaustive multi-source investigation with methodology tracking, source evaluation, and iterative depth." --- ## Core Role Deep Research = investigate thoroughly until the question is answered. Not surface search — systematic exploration with documented methodology. **Not:** quick lookups (→ just search), combining existing docs (→ Synthesize), ongoing monitoring (→ Digest) ## Protocol ``` Scope → Search → Evaluate → Deepen → Synthesize → Document → Deliver ``` ### 1. Scope Before searching, clarify: - What exactly needs answering? - What depth is required? (Overview / Thorough / Exhaustive) - What's the decision this enables? - Time/effort budget? Reframe vague questions into specific, answerable queries. ### 2. Search Multi-vector approach (see `methodology.md`): - Start broad, then narrow - Multiple search engines/sources - Follow citation trails - Check primary sources when secondary cite them - Look for contradicting viewpoints Track every source. Nothing unattributed. ### 3. Evaluate For each source (see `sources.md`): - Authority: Who wrote this? What credentials? - Recency: When? Still valid? - Evidence: Claims backed by data? - Bias: Any agenda or conflict? - Corroboration: Do others confirm this? Flag low-credibility sources. Weight findings accordingly. ### 4. Deepen Research is iterative: - Initial findings reveal new questions - Follow promising threads - Fill gaps identified - Stop when: answer is clear, returns diminish, or budget exhausted Document decision to stop and why. ### 5. Synthesize Merge findings (use Synthesize skill patterns): - Reconcile contradictions explicitly - Weight by source quality - Note confidence levels - Identify remaining unknowns ### 6. Document Research trail matters: - Sources consulted (with links) - Search queries used - Why certain sources were weighted higher - What was NOT found (gaps) ### 7. Deliver Format per user needs (see `output-formats.md`): - Executive: BLUF + key findings + confidence - Academic: Full methodology + citations - Working doc: All findings for further work ## Output Format (Default) ``` 🔬 DEEP RESEARCH: [Topic] ⚡ ANSWER [Direct answer to the question — 2-3 sentences] 📊 CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low] — [why] 🔍 KEY FINDINGS • [Finding 1] — [source] • [Finding 2] — [source] • [Finding 3] — [source] ⚠️ CAVEATS • [Important limitation or uncertainty] 🕳️ GAPS • [What couldn't be determined] 📚 SOURCES ([count]) [Numbered list with credibility notes] 🔎 METHODOLOGY [Brief: what was searched, how sources were evaluated] ``` ## Depth Levels | Level | Effort | Sources | When | |-------|--------|---------|------| | Quick | 5-10 min | 3-5 | Simple factual questions | | Standard | 30-60 min | 8-15 | Most research requests | | Thorough | 2-4 hours | 20-30 | Important decisions | | Exhaustive | Days | 50+ | Critical, high-stakes | Confirm depth before starting. Adjust if findings warrant. --- *References: `methodology.md`, `sources.md`, `output-formats.md`*

path: methodology.md
content: # Research Methodology

Techniques for systematic investigation. Load when planning or executing research.

## Search Strategy

### Start Broad
- General search engines (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo)
- Wikipedia for orientation (then follow citations)
- Overview articles to map the territory

### Go Specific
- Domain-specific databases (PubMed, arXiv, SSRN, etc.)
- Industry reports and whitepapers
- Expert blogs and publications
- Academic papers via Google Scholar

### Alternative Vectors
- **Reverse search**: Find who cites key papers
- **Author search**: Other work by credible authors
- **Forum mining**: Reddit, HN, Stack Exchange for practitioner knowledge
- **Social search**: Twitter/X threads from experts
- **News archives**: Historical coverage and evolution

### Query Techniques
- Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT, "exact phrase")
- Site-specific: `site:nature.com`, `site:gov`
- Filetype: `filetype:pdf` for papers
- Date ranges for recency
- Synonym expansion (try multiple phrasings)

## Source Triangulation

Never rely on single source for important claims:
- Find 3+ independent sources for key facts
- Check if sources cite each other (not truly independent)
- Look for primary source behind secondary reports

## Following Trails

When you find good source:
1. Check its references/citations
2. Find who cited this source (forward citation)
3. Look at author's other work
4. Check related papers/articles suggested

## Knowing When to Stop

Stop research when:
- **Saturation**: New sources repeat what you already found
- **Diminishing returns**: Effort >> incremental value
- **Sufficient confidence**: Answer is clear enough for the decision
- **Budget exhausted**: Time/effort limit reached

Document why you stopped. "More research possible" is always true — note what would be gained.

## Red Flags

Be suspicious when:
- Only one source makes a claim
- Source has obvious financial interest
- No methodology or data shown
- Extraordinary claims, ordinary evidence
- Consensus claimed but not demonstrated

## Documentation During Research

Keep running log:
```
[timestamp] Query: "..."
[timestamp] Found: [source] — [key finding]
[timestamp] Note: [observation about reliability]
[timestamp] Gap: [what I'm not finding]
[timestamp] Decision: [stopped because...]
```


path: output-formats.md
content: # Research Output Formats

Templates for delivering research results. Match format to audience and purpose.

## Executive Summary

For decision-makers with limited time.

```
🔬 RESEARCH: [Topic]

⚡ BOTTOM LINE
[1-2 sentences: the answer]

📊 CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low]

KEY FINDINGS
• [Finding 1]
• [Finding 2]  
• [Finding 3]

⚠️ MAIN CAVEAT
[Single most important limitation]

🎯 RECOMMENDATION
[What to do with this information]
```

Length: 1 page max. No methodology details. Decision-focused.

## Standard Report

For most research requests.

```
🔬 DEEP RESEARCH: [Topic]

## Question
[Specific question being answered]

## Answer
[Direct answer — 2-3 sentences]

## Confidence: [Level]
[Why this confidence level]

## Key Findings
### [Theme 1]
[Findings with source attribution]

### [Theme 2]
[Findings with source attribution]

## Contradictions & Uncertainties
[Where sources disagreed, what remains unclear]

## Gaps
[What couldn't be determined]

## Sources
[Numbered list with brief credibility notes]

## Methodology Note
[What was searched, how evaluated]
```

Length: 2-5 pages. Balanced depth.

## Academic/Comprehensive

For critical decisions or when methodology matters.

```
# Research Report: [Topic]

## Abstract
[Full summary of question, method, findings, conclusion]

## Research Question
[Precise formulation]

## Methodology
### Search Strategy
[Databases searched, queries used, date ranges]

### Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
[What sources were considered, what was excluded and why]

### Evaluation Framework
[How sources were assessed]

## Findings
### [Section by theme]
[Detailed findings with full citations]

## Analysis
### Synthesis
[How findings connect]

### Contradictions
[Detailed analysis of disagreements]

### Confidence Assessment
[Systematic evaluation of certainty]

## Limitations
[What this research cannot answer]

## Conclusion
[Final answer with appropriate caveats]

## References
[Full academic citations]

## Appendix
[Search logs, evaluation notes, raw data]
```

Length: 10+ pages. Full documentation.

## Working Document

For research that will continue or be built upon.

```
# [Topic] — Research Notes

**Status:** [In progress / Complete / Needs more]
**Last updated:** [date]
**Confidence:** [level]

## Current Answer
[Best answer so far]

## What We Know
- [Finding] — [source] — [confidence]
- [Finding] — [source] — [confidence]

## Open Questions
- [ ] [Question still unanswered]
- [ ] [Thing that needs verification]

## Sources Consulted
| Source | Key Finding | Credibility | Notes |
|--------|-------------|-------------|-------|

## Search Log
[Queries tried, what worked, what didn't]

## Next Steps
[What would improve this research]
```

Length: Variable. Living document.

## Quick Answer

For simple factual questions.

```
**Q:** [Question]
**A:** [Direct answer]

Source: [single best source]
Confidence: [level]
```

Length: 3-5 lines. Only when depth isn't needed.


path: sources.md
content: # Source Types & Evaluation

Reference for evaluating research sources.

## Source Hierarchy

### Tier 1: Primary Sources (Highest Weight)
- **Original research**: Peer-reviewed studies, clinical trials
- **Official data**: Government statistics, regulatory filings
- **Direct documentation**: Patents, standards, specifications
- **First-hand accounts**: Interviews, testimony, direct observation

### Tier 2: Expert Analysis (High Weight)
- **Expert commentary**: Domain experts analyzing primary sources
- **Systematic reviews**: Meta-analyses, literature reviews
- **Industry reports**: Gartner, McKinsey, specialized analysts
- **Technical publications**: IEEE, ACM, domain journals

### Tier 3: Quality Secondary (Medium Weight)
- **Quality journalism**: Investigative reporting, major outlets
- **Educational content**: Textbooks, university materials
- **Professional publications**: Trade journals, industry magazines

### Tier 4: General Secondary (Lower Weight)
- **General news**: Breaking news coverage
- **Encyclopedias**: Wikipedia (follow citations to primary)
- **Aggregators**: News roundups, content summaries

### Tier 5: Informal (Use Cautiously)
- **Forums/Social**: Reddit, Twitter, HN (valuable for practitioner knowledge)
- **Blogs**: Personal sites (varies wildly — evaluate individually)
- **User content**: Reviews, comments, discussions

## Evaluation Checklist

For each significant source:

| Factor | Check |
|--------|-------|
| **Authority** | Who wrote it? Credentials? Institutional backing? |
| **Currency** | When published? Still accurate? |
| **Evidence** | Claims supported by data? Methodology shown? |
| **Purpose** | Inform? Persuade? Sell? Academic? |
| **Bias** | Funding sources? Political angle? Conflicts? |
| **Corroboration** | Do independent sources confirm? |

## Credibility Scoring

```
High confidence: Tier 1-2, multiple corroborating sources, no conflicts
Medium confidence: Tier 2-3, some corroboration, minor concerns
Low confidence: Tier 4-5, single source, or significant bias/conflicts
Flag: Contradicted by higher-tier sources, major credibility issues
```

## Domain-Specific Sources

### Technology
- arXiv, ACM, IEEE, company engineering blogs, GitHub

### Medical/Health
- PubMed, Cochrane, NIH, peer-reviewed journals (avoid news hype)

### Business/Finance
- SEC filings, earnings calls, industry analysts, financial press

### Legal
- Court documents, legal databases, law reviews

### Science
- Nature, Science, domain journals, preprint servers

## Common Traps

- **Press release as source**: Find the underlying study
- **Correlation as causation**: Note if source does this
- **Sample size ignored**: Small n = preliminary at best
- **P-hacking / cherry-picking**: Look for preregistration
- **Appeal to authority**: Credentials don't guarantee correctness
- **Outdated consensus**: Check if field has moved on


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)