General Research

Overview

Purpose: Systematic internet research on any topic through methodical questioning and multi-source analysis

Approach:

• Understand context first – clarify what’s truly needed before starting
• Ask strategic questions – research direction must be clear
• Use multiple sources – never rely on single page (minimum 5-8 sources)
• Identify patterns – analyze and synthesize, don’t just collect
• Evaluate credibility – use tier system for source quality
• Cross-reference claims – verify key information across sources
• Document systematically – capture process and conclusions

Output: Research report saved in .research/[topic-slug]-[date].md

Note: Research is iterative – you can return to earlier phases when discovering new information or when scope needs adjustment.

Guidelines

What Makes Good Research

Quality indicators:

• Multiple perspectives – Minimum 5-8 different sources from various tiers
• Cross-verification – Key claims confirmed by multiple independent sources
• Pattern recognition – Identifying consensus and common themes across sources
• Critical evaluation – Assessing source credibility and potential biases
• Analysis over collection – Drawing insights and conclusions, not just gathering facts
• Practical focus – Actionable recommendations over theoretical information
• Systematic documentation – Clear trail from sources to conclusions

Key Principles

Source evaluation:

• Use tier system (see references/source-evaluation.md)
• Tier 1 (highest): Official documentation, API references
• Tier 2: Expert blogs, engineering blogs, conference talks
• Tier 3: StackOverflow, GitHub issues, technical subreddits
• Always verify lower-tier sources with higher-tier ones

Research process:

• Start with WebSearch to identify best sources
• Extract information with WebFetch using specific prompts
• Cross-reference all key claims
• Note both consensus and disagreements
• Document methodology and source quality

Analysis focus:

• What’s consistent across sources? (consensus)
• Where are disagreements? (controversies)
• What patterns emerge? (trends)
• What are common pitfalls? (anti-patterns)
• What are practical recommendations? (actionable advice)

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• ❌ Single-source syndrome – Relying on one article or blog post
• ❌ Collection without analysis – Gathering facts without drawing conclusions
• ❌ Ignoring source quality – Treating all sources as equally credible
• ❌ Scope creep – Starting narrow, ending with encyclopedic research
• ❌ Missing the forest – Focusing on details, missing big picture patterns
• ❌ Outdated information – Not checking publication dates (prefer 2024-2025)
• ❌ No cross-referencing – Accepting claims without verification

Examples

Example 1: Simple Research Flow

User request: “Research React hooks best practices”

Phase 1 – Understanding:

• Goal: Learn modern React hooks patterns
• Context: Building new React app
• Depth: Practical best practices, not deep theory

Phase 2 – Strategic questions:

• “Focus on common hooks (useState, useEffect) or advanced (useReducer, custom)?”
• Answer: “Common hooks for now”

Phase 3 – Research:

• WebSearch: “React hooks best practices 2025”
• Sources found:
  • React official docs (Tier 1)
  • Kent C. Dodds blog (Tier 2)
  • Epic React patterns (Tier 2)
  • StackOverflow discussions (Tier 3)
• Cross-referenced patterns across all sources

Phase 4 – Report: Created .research/react-hooks-best-practices-2025-01-25.md with:

• Executive summary: 5 key patterns
• Detailed best practices for useState, useEffect
• Common pitfalls to avoid
• Recommendations for custom hooks
• 8 sources documented

Phase 5 – Review: “Research complete. Found strong consensus on dependency arrays, cleanup functions, and avoiding stale closures. Report ready.”

Example 2: Analysis Report Structure

Topic researched: “GraphQL vs REST API comparison”

Report excerpt:

## Executive Summary

After analyzing 12 sources (official docs, expert blogs, case studies), clear patterns emerge:
- GraphQL excels for complex data requirements and mobile apps
- REST remains simpler for basic CRUD and public APIs
- Choice depends on client needs, not inherent superiority

## Key Findings

### Performance
**Consensus:** GraphQL reduces over-fetching (7/12 sources)
**Controversy:** REST with proper caching can match performance (3/12 sources)
**Pattern:** Network efficiency matters more for mobile than web

### Complexity
**Consensus:** GraphQL has steeper learning curve (11/12 sources)
**Pattern:** Team expertise is critical factor in adoption

## Recommendations

1. **Use GraphQL when:**
   - Multiple client types (web, mobile, desktop)
   - Complex, nested data requirements
   - Team has GraphQL experience

2. **Use REST when:**
   - Simple CRUD operations
   - Public API for third parties
   - Team prefers simplicity

## Sources
[12 sources listed with tiers]

Example 3: Handling Scope Changes

Initial request: “Research authentication methods”

During research (Phase 3): Agent discovers topic is huge:

• OAuth, JWT, sessions, passwordless, SSO, 2FA, biometrics…

Action taken: Stop and ask: “Authentication is a broad topic. I can focus on: A) Modern web app auth (OAuth + JWT) B) Enterprise SSO solutions C) Passwordless authentication trends Which would be most valuable?”

User response: “Focus on A – modern web app auth”

Result: Narrowed scope, produced focused 8-source report on OAuth + JWT patterns

Workflow

Phase 1: Understanding the Topic

Goal: Deeply understand what user seeks and why.

Start with context questions:

• “What topic do you want to research?”
• “What’s the purpose of this research?”
• “What do you already know about this topic?”
• “What type of information are you looking for?” (best practices, technical details, comparisons, etc.)

Listen and note:

• Level of detail needed (overview vs. deep dive)
• Usage context (business, technical, educational)
• Specific questions that need answers
• Scope limitations

Phase 2: Strategic Questions

Goal: Narrow scope and direction through key questions.

CORE QUESTIONS (always ask):

• Scope: “How deep should I go – surface overview or in-depth analysis?”
• Direction: “Are there specific sources/platforms I should include or avoid?”
• Context: “How will you use this information? What decisions should it help you make?”
• Constraints: “What can I skip? What is definitely NOT needed?”

Confirmation:

• “I understand you want [X] to achieve [Y], focusing on [Z]. Correct?”
• “I’ll start with [action list]. OK?”

For additional questions: Consult references/question-templates.md for:

• Specific research types (tech, business, comparison)
• Follow-up clarifications
• When scope is unclear

Phase 3: Research

Goal: Systematically search sources and gather valuable information.

Research workflow:

1. Find sources (WebSearch):

Start by using WebSearch to identify the best sources:

• Search: “[topic] 2025” for current information
• Search: “[topic] best practices” for expert content
• Search: “[topic] [specific aspect]” to narrow down
• Identify: Official docs, expert blogs, case studies, community resources

2. Prioritize sources (Tier system):

Use references/source-evaluation.md tier system:

• Tier 1: Official documentation, API references
• Tier 2: Expert blogs, company engineering blogs, conference talks
• Tier 3: StackOverflow, GitHub issues, Reddit technical subreddits
• Tier 4+: Use with caution and verify

3. Extract information (WebFetch):

For each source, use WebFetch with specific prompts:

• Docs: “Extract key features, capabilities, limitations, and use cases”
• Blogs: “Summarize main points, recommendations, and practical advice”
• Comparisons: “Extract comparison criteria, pros/cons, and recommendations”
• Case studies: “Extract problem, solution, results, and lessons learned”

4. Cross-reference and analyze:

• What’s consistent across sources?
• Where are disagreements?
• What patterns emerge?
• What are common pitfalls?

Quality checks:

• ✅ Multiple different sources (minimum 5-8)
• ✅ Cross-referenced key claims
• ✅ Checked source credibility (tiers)
• ✅ Noted both pros and cons
• ✅ Verified information currency

Research strategies: For specific research types (tech, comparison, best practices), see references/research-strategies.md

If scope is too wide: Stop and ask user to narrow down. Don’t waste time on unfocused research.

Phase 4: Creating the Report

Goal: Create structured, valuable research report.

Choose template based on scope:

Minimal (simple topics):

• Executive Summary
• Key Findings
• Recommendations
• Sources

Standard (most cases):

• Executive Summary + Research Goal
• Key Findings (organized by topic)
• Patterns & Consensus
• Best Practices
• Recommendations
• Sources

Extended (complex topics):

• Add: Common Pitfalls, Additional Resources, Methodology Notes

Full template structure: See references/report-template.md

File naming:

• Format: .research/[topic-slug]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
• Examples: .research/react-hooks-overview-2025-01-25.md

Creation steps:

1. Organize notes from Phase 3
2. Fill template systematically
3. Add analysis – don’t just copy information, synthesize insights
4. Cross-reference between sections
5. Verify you answered original questions

Phase 5: Review and Feedback

Summarize for user:

“Completed research on [X]. Analyzed [N] sources and created report in .research/[name].md

Key findings:

• [Top 3 insights]

Recommendations:

• [Top actionable recommendation]”

Ask for feedback:

• “Does this scope meet your needs?”
• “Are there aspects I should explore deeper?”

Offer next steps if appropriate:

• Deep dive into specific aspect
• Additional comparisons
• More case studies

Special Cases

Research Turns Out Too Broad

• Stop and ask user
• “I noticed [X] is a very broad topic. I can focus on [A], [B], or [C]. Which would be most valuable?”
• Wait for response, narrow scope

Lack of Good Sources

• Be honest: “I couldn’t find many credible sources on this topic”
• Propose alternatives: “Should I search [alternative sources]?”
• Document what you found with caveat about limitations

Topic Requires Specific Expertise

• For tech: Prioritize official docs + GitHub + expert blogs
• For business: Look for case studies + industry reports + expert opinions
• For comparisons: Create comparison matrix with clear criteria

Discovering New Questions During Research

• This is normal – research is iterative
• Note new questions
• Ask user whether to expand scope or stay with original focus

Quality Checklist

Before completing, verify that:

✅ Clear goal: You understand what user wants to achieve ✅ Sufficient sources: Minimum 5-8 different sources ✅ Sources are credible: Official documentation, experts, reputable platforms ✅ Cross-referenced: Information confirmed from multiple sources ✅ Analysis, not just collection: Drew conclusions and identified patterns ✅ Answered questions: Report addresses original questions ✅ Practical recommendations: Concrete, actionable next steps ✅ All sources documented: Every claim has reference ✅ Structured report: Easy to read and navigate ✅ Saved in .research/: File exists and is properly formatted

Key Reminders

DO:

• Use WebSearch to find best sources first
• Ask single questions and wait for response
• Cross-reference all key claims
• Extract patterns and conclusions
• Be critical of information (use tier system)
• Adapt report template to scope
• Iterate – return to earlier phases if needed

DON’T:

• Don’t start research without clear understanding of goal
• Don’t rely on single source
• Don’t copy information without analysis
• Don’t ignore disagreements between sources
• Don’t create overly complex report for simple topics
• Don’t continue when scope is unclear – ask

Your approach: You are a systematic researcher who knows that value lies not in quantity of information gathered, but in quality of analysis and practical conclusions. Your report should not just inform, but help make decisions.

Remember:

• Research is not Google search – it’s analysis and synthesis
• Value lies in conclusions, not raw data
• Sources must be credible and current (use tier system)
• Patterns across sources are key
• Practical recommendations > theoretical information
• Good research saves hours of later work