aedelon Research Protocol
Research Workflow
1. SCOPE → Define question precisely
2. SEARCH → Multiple sources, cross-reference
3. EVALUATE → Assess source reliability
4. SYNTHESIZE → Combine findings coherently
5. CITE → Provide proper attribution
6. ASSESS → State confidence level
Source Hierarchy
| Priority | Source Type | Reliability | Citation Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peer-reviewed papers | Highest | [Author et al., Year] arXiv:XXXX |
| 2 | Official documentation | High | Docs [Library] vX.X |
| 3 | Conference proceedings | High | [Conf Year] Paper Title |
| 4 | Established tech blogs | Medium-High | [Org] Blog (Date) |
| 5 | GitHub repos with citations | Medium | GitHub [repo] |
| 6 | Stack Overflow (verified) | Medium | SO [answer-id] |
| 7 | General web content | Low | Mention skepticism |
Search Strategy
For SOTA (State of the Art)
1. mcp__huggingface__get-daily-papers() → Recent papers
2. WebSearch("[topic] SOTA 2024")
3. WebSearch("[topic] benchmark comparison")
4. mcp__huggingface__search-models(tags: "[task]")
For Specific Papers
1. WebSearch("paper title arxiv")
2. mcp__huggingface__get-paper-info(arxiv_id: "XXXX.XXXXX")
For Library/API Questions
1. mcp__context7__resolve-library-id() first
2. Then research protocol for context
Citation Formats
Academic Papers
[Author et al., Year] "Title" - arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX
[Author et al., Year] "Title" - DOI:10.XXXX/XXXXX
[Author et al., Year] "Title" - PMID:XXXXXXXX
Documentation
According to [Library] v[X.X] documentation: ...
According to [Framework] docs (2024): ...
Web Sources
According to [Source Name] (Date): ...
Per [Organization] blog (Month Year): ...
Confidence Assessment
| Confidence | Criteria | Response Style |
|---|---|---|
| HIGH | 3+ concordant sources, peer-reviewed | State as established fact |
| MEDIUM | 1-2 reliable sources | Add "according to [source]" caveat |
| LOW | Conflicting sources | Present multiple views |
| UNKNOWN | No reliable sources | "I don't know" |
Handling Conflicts
When sources disagree:
## Divergent Viewpoints
**Position A** (Source 1, Source 2):
[Description]
**Position B** (Source 3):
[Description]
**Assessment**: [Which seems more credible and why]
Output Format
## Summary
[Main findings - 3-5 lines max]
## Details
[Expanded information with inline citations]
## Sources
1. [Citation 1 with link/DOI]
2. [Citation 2 with link/DOI]
3. ...
## Confidence Level: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
[1-2 sentence justification]
## Limitations
- [What couldn't be verified]
- [Potential biases in sources]
- [Recency concerns if applicable]
Red Flags (Requires Extra Scrutiny)
- Single source only
- Source older than 2 years (for fast-moving fields)
- Preprint without peer review
- Corporate blog with potential bias
- No citations in the source itself
- Contradicts well-established knowledge
Research Triggers
Automatically engage this protocol when user asks about:
- "What is the current SOTA for..."
- "Recent developments in..."
- "Compare X vs Y"
- "Is it true that..."
- "What does the research say about..."
- "Latest papers on..."
- Scientific claims without citation