Research

Systematic investigation → evidence-based analysis → authoritative recommendations.

Steps

1. Define scope and evaluation criteria
2. Discover sources using MCP tools (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
3. Gather information with multi-source approach
4. Load the report-findings skill for synthesis
5. Compile report with confidence levels and citations

<when_to_use>

• Technology evaluation and comparison
• Documentation discovery and troubleshooting
• Best practices and industry standards research
• Implementation guidance with authoritative sources

NOT for: quick lookups, well-known patterns, time-critical debugging without investigation stage

</when_to_use>

<stages>

Load the maintain-tasks skill for stage tracking. Stages advance only, never regress.

Stage	Trigger	activeForm
Analyze Request	Session start	"Analyzing research request"
Discover Sources	Criteria defined	"Discovering sources"
Gather Information	Sources identified	"Gathering information"
Synthesize Findings	Information gathered	"Synthesizing findings"
Compile Report	Synthesis complete	"Compiling report"

Workflow:

• Start: Create "Analyze Request" as in_progress
• Transition: Mark current completed, add next in_progress
• Simple queries: Skip directly to "Gather Information" if unambiguous
• Gaps during synthesis: Add new "Gather Information" task
• Early termination: Skip to "Compile Report" with caveats

</stages> <methodology>

Five-stage systematic approach:

1. Question Stage — Define scope

• Decision to be made?
• Evaluation parameters? (performance, maintainability, security, adoption)
• Constraints? (timeline, expertise, infrastructure)

2. Discovery Stage — Multi-source retrieval

Use Case	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary
Official docs	context7	octocode	firecrawl
Troubleshooting	octocode issues	firecrawl community	context7 guides
Code examples	octocode repos	firecrawl tutorials	context7 examples
Technology eval	Parallel all	Cross-reference	Validate

3. Evaluation Stage — Analyze against criteria

Criterion	Metrics
Performance	Benchmarks, latency, throughput, memory
Maintainability	Code complexity, docs quality, community activity
Security	CVEs, audits, compliance
Adoption	Downloads, production usage, industry patterns

4. Comparison Stage — Systematic tradeoff analysis

For each option: Strengths → Weaknesses → Best fit → Deal breakers

5. Recommendation Stage — Clear guidance with rationale

Primary recommendation → Alternatives → Implementation steps → Limitations

</methodology> <tools>

Three MCP servers for multi-source research:

Tool	Best For	Key Functions
context7	Official docs, API refs	resolve-library-id, get-library-docs
octocode	Code examples, issues	packageSearch, githubSearchCode, githubSearchIssues
firecrawl	Tutorials, benchmarks	search, scrape, map

Execution patterns:

• Parallel: Run independent queries simultaneously for speed
• Fallback: context7 → octocode → firecrawl if primary fails
• Progressive: Start broad, narrow based on findings

See tool-selection.md for detailed usage.

</tools>

<discovery_patterns>

Common research workflows:

Scenario	Approach
Library Installation	Package search → Official docs → Installation guide
Error Resolution	Parse error → Search issues → Official troubleshooting → Community solutions
API Exploration	Documentation ID → API reference → Real usage examples
Technology Comparison	Parallel all sources → Cross-reference → Build matrix → Recommend

See discovery-patterns.md for detailed workflows.

</discovery_patterns>

<findings_format>

Two output modes:

Evaluation Mode (recommendations):

Finding: { assertion }
Source: { authoritative source with link }
Confidence: High/Medium/Low — { rationale }

Discovery Mode (gathering):

Found: { what was discovered }
Source: { where from with link }
Notes: { context or caveats }

</findings_format>

<response_structure>

## Research Summary

Brief overview — what investigated, sources consulted.

## Options Discovered

1. **Option A** — description
2. **Option B** — description

## Comparison Matrix

| Criterion | Option A | Option B |
| --------- | -------- | -------- |

## Recommendation

### Primary: [Option Name]

**Rationale**: reasoning + evidence
**Confidence**: level + explanation

### Alternatives

When to choose differently.

## Implementation Guidance

Next steps, common pitfalls, validation.

## Sources

- Official, benchmarks, case studies, community

</response_structure>

<quality>

Always include:

• Direct citations with links
• Confidence levels and limitations
• Context about when recommendations may not apply

Always validate:

• Version is latest stable
• Documentation matches user context
• Critical info cross-referenced
• Code examples complete and runnable

Proactively flag:

• Deprecated approaches with modern alternatives
• Missing prerequisites
• Common pitfalls and gotchas
• Related tools in ecosystem

</quality> <rules>

ALWAYS:

• Create "Analyze Request" todo at session start
• One stage in_progress at a time
• Use multi-source approach (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
• Provide direct citations with links
• Cross-reference critical information
• Include confidence levels and limitations

NEVER:

• Skip "Analyze Request" stage without defining scope
• Single-source when multi-source available
• Deliver recommendations without citations
• Include deprecated approaches without flagging
• Omit limitations and edge cases

</rules> <references>

• source-hierarchy.md — authority evaluation details
• tool-selection.md — MCP server decision matrix
• discovery-patterns.md — detailed research workflows

Research vs Report-Findings:

• This skill (research) covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
• report-findings skill covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation

Use research for technology evaluation, documentation discovery, and best practices research. Load report-findings during synthesis stage for source authority assessment and confidence calibration.

</references>