From nickcrew-claude-ctx-plugin
Conducts structured web research on topics like technical docs, markets, or events; uses advanced search operators, CRAAP test for credibility, synthesizes multi-source info.
npx claudepluginhub nickcrew/claude-cortexThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
The Web Researcher skill provides a structured methodology for conducting effective online research. It covers advanced search strategies, source credibility evaluation using the CRAAP test, synthesis of findings across multiple sources, and organized note-taking. Whether exploring a new market, investigating a technical topic, or gathering competitive intelligence, this skill ensures thorough ...
Performs structured multi-step web research using native WebSearch/WebFetch tools without external APIs. For market analysis, competitive landscaping, literature reviews, and technical due diligence.
Conducts expert web research with advanced search operators, result filtering, multi-source verification, synthesis for fact-checking, competitive analysis, and trends.
Conducts multi-source web research with firecrawl and exa MCPs: searches, scrapes pages, synthesizes cited reports. For deep dives, competitive analysis, tech evaluations, or due diligence.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
The Web Researcher skill provides a structured methodology for conducting effective online research. It covers advanced search strategies, source credibility evaluation using the CRAAP test, synthesis of findings across multiple sources, and organized note-taking. Whether exploring a new market, investigating a technical topic, or gathering competitive intelligence, this skill ensures thorough and reliable results.
| Task | Approach |
|---|---|
| Broad topic overview | Start with Wikipedia, then follow cited sources |
| Find recent news | Use site:reuters.com or after:2024-01-01 filter |
| Academic sources | Google Scholar, PubMed, SSRN |
| Government data | site:.gov or site:.edu operators |
| Exclude noise | Use - operator: python tutorial -w3schools |
| Exact phrase | Wrap in quotes: "machine learning fairness" |
| Evaluate credibility | Apply CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) |
Define your research question clearly
Construct effective search queries using Boolean operators
CRM software AND pricing AND B2BCRM OR "customer relationship management"CRM pricing -Salesforce"market share" "CRM software""best * for small business"Use site-specific and advanced search filters
site:domain.com — search within a specific sitefiletype:pdf — find PDFs (reports, whitepapers)intitle:keyword — keyword must appear in page titleafter:YYYY-MM-DD / before:YYYY-MM-DD — date range filteringCRM market share filetype:pdf after:2023-01-01Evaluate sources using the CRAAP test
Diversify your sources
Take structured notes Use this template for each source:
Source: [Title, Author, URL, Date]
Credibility: [CRAAP score: High/Medium/Low]
Key Finding 1: [quote or paraphrase]
Key Finding 2: [quote or paraphrase]
Relevance to question: [1-2 sentences]
Synthesize findings
Input: "Research the current landscape of AI-powered writing tools — key players, pricing, and differentiators."
Output:
Research Question: Who are the leading AI writing tools, what do they cost, and how do they differentiate?
Search queries used:
- "AI writing tools" market share 2024
- site:g2.com "AI writing" comparison
- "Jasper" OR "Copy.ai" OR "Writesonic" pricing filetype:pdf
Key Findings (synthesized by theme):
MARKET LEADERS:
- Jasper AI: Enterprise focus, starts at $49/mo, strong brand voice features (Source: Jasper.ai, G2 Reviews 2024)
- Copy.ai: Freemium model, $36/mo pro, workflow automation focus (Source: Copy.ai website)
- Writesonic: $16/mo starter, SEO integration via SurferSEO (Source: Writesonic.com)
DIFFERENTIATORS:
- Jasper: Brand voice training, team collaboration
- Copy.ai: Go-to-market workflows, CRM integrations
- Writesonic: Cost efficiency, built-in SEO tools
PRICING TREND: Most tools moving to seat-based + usage-credit hybrid model (multiple sources, 2024)
GAPS: Limited independent data on enterprise contract pricing; most pricing pages hide volume discounts.
Sources rated: 6/7 High credibility (1 Medium — blog post with no cited data)
Input: "Find information on WebAssembly performance compared to JavaScript for compute-intensive tasks."
Output:
Research Question: How does WebAssembly performance compare to JavaScript for compute-intensive workloads?
Search queries used:
- "WebAssembly" vs JavaScript performance benchmark
- site:v8.dev WebAssembly
- "WASM" performance "compute intensive" filetype:pdf after:2022-01-01
Key Findings:
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS:
- WASM is typically 10–40% faster than JS for CPU-bound tasks (Mozilla Hacks, 2023)
- For memory-intensive tasks, WASM's linear memory model offers predictability (V8 Blog, 2023)
- JS remains faster for DOM manipulation due to JIT optimization (Surma, web.dev, 2022)
USE CASES WHERE WASM WINS:
- Image/video processing, cryptography, physics simulations, codecs
- Example: Figma uses WASM for its rendering engine (Figma Engineering Blog)
USE CASES WHERE JS IS SUFFICIENT:
- Business logic, UI interactions, API calls, form handling
CREDIBILITY NOTES:
- v8.dev and mozilla.org = High authority (engine developers)
- Personal blogs cross-checked against official benchmarks
site:reddit.com to find candid user opinions and practitioner discussionscache:url in Google shows the cached version of a page if it's downrelated:domain.com to find websites similar to a trusted source