Research
Systematic investigation → evidence-based analysis → authoritative recommendations.
Steps
- Define scope and evaluation criteria
- Discover sources using MCP tools (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
- Gather information with multi-source approach
- Load the
outfitter:report-findingsskill for synthesis - 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 nextin_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
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
ALWAYS:
- Create "Analyze Request" todo at session start
- One stage
in_progressat 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
- 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-findingsskill 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.