Research Workflow

Complete research lifecycle: clarify → decompose → search → summarize → corroborate → synthesize.

Step 1: Clarify

The user wants to research: {input}

Before searching, clarify:
- What specifically are we trying to learn?
- What constraints matter (language, framework, scale)?
- Any sources they already know about?

Restate the research question precisely.

Use AskUserQuestion to ask these questions explicitly. Don't proceed until the question is clear.

Step 2: Decompose into Sub-Questions

Break the research question into 3-5 sub-questions, each with an explicit retrieval goal.

Format:
- Query: <search query>
  Goal: <what this search should find — e.g., "official docs on X", "benchmarks comparing X vs Y", "known problems with X">

Rules:
- Each query must target a DIFFERENT angle (definition, evidence, criticism, alternatives, recency)
- No two queries should return the same results
- Include at least one query seeking disconfirming evidence or criticism

Step 3: Search (Parallel Fan-Out)

[PARALLEL] Launch all sub-question searches concurrently using the researcher agent (max 3 agents):

Task: Execute web search for a specific sub-question.
Agent: researcher
Input: Query + Goal from decomposition step
Collect: titles, URLs, key snippets

All searches run in parallel. Collect results before proceeding.

Budget

• Token budget: ~200k tokens.
• Early exit: If the first search pass clearly answers the question, skip follow-up.

Step 4: Summarize Sources

For the 3-5 most promising URLs, fetch clean content:
  WebFetch https://r.jina.ai/{url} with header Accept: text/markdown

CRITICAL: Immediately summarize each page into 3-5 key claims with source attribution.
Do NOT carry raw page content forward — summarize first, then discard the raw text.
This prevents context overflow on large pages.

If Jina fails for a URL, fall back to raw WebFetch on the original URL.

Step 5: Corroborate

For each key claim from Step 4:
- Count how many independent sources support it
- Flag any claims supported by only 1 source as "uncorroborated"
- Flag any claims where sources contradict each other

Mark claims as:
- CONFIRMED (2+ independent sources agree)
- UNCORROBORATED (only 1 source)
- CONTESTED (sources disagree)

Escalation Check

After corroboration, evaluate whether this question needs deep research. Ask the user (via AskUserQuestion) to upgrade to /devkit:deep-research if ANY of these are true:

1. 3+ CONTESTED claims — sources actively contradict each other on key points
2. High-stakes domain — the question involves security, architecture decisions, compliance, data integrity, or financial impact
3. User expressed uncertainty — they said "I'm not sure if", "is this actually true", "I've heard conflicting things", or similar
4. Most claims are UNCORROBORATED — more than half the key claims have only one source

Phrasing: "I'm finding [conflicting sources / low confidence / high-stakes implications] on this. Want me to switch to deep research with competing hypothesis analysis? It costs more tokens but produces higher-confidence results."

If the user says no, continue with the standard synthesis. Do NOT auto-escalate — always ask first.

Step 6: Follow-Up

Review claims marked UNCORROBORATED or CONTESTED.
For each, run one targeted search to either confirm or resolve the conflict.
Use Jina Reader for any new sources, summarize immediately.

If all key claims are confirmed or the question is answered, say "RESEARCH_COMPLETE".

Loop up to 2 times.

Step 7: Synthesize

## Research: {question}

### Direct Answer
{clear answer to the research question}

### Key Findings
{findings with source URLs and corroboration status}
- CONFIRMED: {claim} — [source1], [source2]
- UNCORROBORATED: {claim} — [source] (single source only)
- CONTESTED: {claim} — [source1] says X, [source2] says Y

### Tradeoffs
{comparison between approaches}

### Open Questions
{what couldn't be resolved, any CONTESTED claims without resolution}

### Recommendation
{what to do and why, noting confidence level}

Rules

• Clarify before searching — don't waste searches on a vague question
• Decompose into sub-questions with explicit goals — no vague "broad search"
• Summarize immediately — never carry raw fetched content forward
• Track corroboration — every claim should note how many sources support it
• Surface contradictions — if sources disagree, say so explicitly
• Follow up on gaps — loop if key claims are uncorroborated
• Cite sources — every finding links to where it came from
• Recommend — don't just dump information, give a clear recommendation with confidence level
• Escalate when warranted — if sources conflict, stakes are high, or confidence is low, ask the user to upgrade to deep-research. Never auto-escalate.