andrem-sec Deep Research Skill
Structured multi-source research workflow. Produces synthesis reports with inline citations and explicit methodology.
What Claude Gets Wrong Without This Skill
Without structured research, Claude:
- Jumps straight to synthesis without reading enough sources (superficial coverage)
- Doesn't cite sources inline, making claims unverifiable
- Stops at 3-5 sources instead of gathering diverse perspectives (narrow research)
- Produces summaries instead of synthesis (lists facts, doesn't integrate themes)
- Doesn't acknowledge gaps or limitations in available information
Deep research ensures comprehensive, verifiable, and transparent knowledge synthesis.
The 6-Step Workflow
Step 1: Clarify Goal
Define the research question explicitly.
Transform vague requests into focused questions:
- Vague: "Research React"
- Focused: "What are the performance implications of using Context API vs Redux for global state in React 18?"
Specify scope boundaries: Timeframe (last 12 months vs all history), domain (academic vs industry vs docs), depth (30 min survey vs 2-hour deep dive).
Identify success criteria: What decision does this inform? What confidence level is needed?
Step 2: Plan 3-5 Sub-Questions
Break the research question into focused sub-topics.
Example: React Context vs Redux → sub-questions: performance difference, bundle size, official React 18 guidance, community trends, maintainability tradeoffs.
Each sub-question: answerable from 3-6 sources, focuses on one dimension, contributes to overall question.
Step 3: Multi-Source Search (15-30 sources)
Source diversity is critical. Gather 15-30 sources from: official docs (APIs, RFCs, changelogs), academic papers (ArXiv, IEEE, ACM), industry blogs (Thoughtworks, company eng blogs), community signals (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Reddit), tools/data (npm trends, benchmarks).
Skim all, mark 3-5 for deep read, record metadata. Prefer sources <12 months old (tech moves fast).
Step 4: Deep Read (3-5 key sources)
Read the top 3-5 sources in full, not just abstracts.
Selection criteria:
- Most authoritative (official docs, core maintainers, recognized experts)
- Most comprehensive (covers multiple sub-questions)
- Most recent (published within 12 months if possible)
- Most relevant to decision criteria
While reading, extract:
- Key claims and their supporting evidence
- Methodology (how was this measured/determined?)
- Limitations acknowledged by the author
- Contradictions with other sources (note these explicitly)
Deep read time budget:
- ~15-20 minutes per source
- Take notes in a temporary scratch file
- Mark direct quotes vs paraphrasing
Step 5: Synthesize
Synthesis is NOT summarization.
Summarization (wrong):
- Source A says X
- Source B says Y
- Source C says Z
Synthesis (correct):
- Theme 1: Performance characteristics
- Evidence from Source A, Source C, and Benchmark D
- Consensus: [statement], with caveats: [limitations]
- Minority view: Source B found [different result] due to [methodology difference]
Organize by themes, not by sources.
Identify:
- Consensus: What do most sources agree on?
- Contradictions: Where do sources disagree? Why?
- Gaps: What questions remain unanswered?
- Context: What factors affect the conclusions (scale, use case, constraints)?
Every claim needs a citation.
Use inline citations: [Source Title, Date] or [Author, Date]
Example:
"React 18's automatic batching reduces re-renders by 30-50% in typical applications [React 18 RFC, 2021], making Context API performance comparable to Redux for moderate state complexity [Benchmark by Josh Comeau, 2022]. However, at >1000 component trees, Redux still outperforms due to selector memoization [Redux Toolkit Docs, 2023]."
Step 6: Deliver
Report Format:
# Research Report: [Question]
**Date:** [ISO date]
**Scope:** [Brief scope statement]
## Executive Summary
[3-5 sentence synthesis answering the research question directly. Decision-focused.]
## [Theme 1]
[Synthesis with inline citations]
## [Theme 2]
[Synthesis with inline citations]
## [Theme 3]
[Synthesis with inline citations]
## Key Takeaways
1. [Actionable insight 1]
2. [Actionable insight 2]
3. [Actionable insight 3]
## Limitations and Gaps
[What is uncertain or unknown? Where do sources contradict? What follow-up research is needed?]
## Sources
[Full citation list with URLs, sorted by relevance or alphabetically]
1. [Title] by [Author], [Date]. [URL]
2. [Title] by [Author], [Date]. [URL]
...
## Methodology
[Brief description of search strategy, source selection criteria, and analysis approach]
Report should be:
- Scannable: Executive Summary + Key Takeaways enough for quick decision
- Verifiable: Every claim has inline citation to source
- Transparent: Methodology and limitations explicitly stated
- Actionable: Focused on decision criteria, not exhaustive literature review
Source Quality Standards
High-Quality Sources:
- Official documentation from authoritative bodies
- Peer-reviewed academic papers
- Industry analysis from recognized experts with track record
- Empirical benchmarks with published methodology
- Primary sources (author of the technology, core maintainer)
Low-Quality Sources:
- Opinion pieces without supporting evidence
- Marketing content disguised as analysis
- Uncited claims or "everyone knows" statements
- Sources >3 years old (unless historical context needed)
- Anonymous or pseudonymous sources without credibility signals
When in doubt, apply the hierarchy:
- Official docs and RFCs (highest authority)
- Academic papers and empirical benchmarks
- Recognized industry experts with transparent methodology
- Community consensus (Stack Overflow, GitHub discussions)
- Individual blog posts (lowest, use for color only)
Acknowledging Gaps
Explicitly state when:
- Sources contradict and no clear resolution exists
- No recent sources available (most recent is >2 years old)
- Only anecdotal evidence exists (no empirical benchmarks)
- Research is limited to specific context (single framework, single scale, single use case)
Example gap acknowledgment:
"Performance comparisons are limited to client-side React applications. Server-side rendering (SSR) performance was not covered in available sources. Follow-up research needed for Next.js-specific implications."
Gaps are not failures. Transparency about limitations increases report credibility.
Integration with Existing Skills
Complements investigate skill:
- investigate: codebase-internal debugging and root cause analysis
- deep-research: external knowledge synthesis (literature, tools, practices)
Feeds into other skills:
- prd: Research informs requirements (technical feasibility, best practices)
- consensus-plan: Research provides evidence for architectural decisions
- tdd: Research identifies testing patterns and coverage standards
Anti-Patterns
Stopping at 3 sources: Insufficient diversity. You need 15-30 to identify consensus and contradictions.
Summarizing instead of synthesizing: Listing "Source A says X, Source B says Y" is not synthesis. Organize by themes, integrate evidence.
Skipping inline citations: Claims without citations are unverifiable. Every assertion needs a source reference.
Using only recent sources: Sometimes historical context matters. If researching "why does X exist", older sources (original RFC, launch announcement) are valuable.
Ignoring contradictions: When sources disagree, investigate why. Methodology differences? Different contexts? One source outdated?
Mandatory Checklist
- Verify research question clearly stated with explicit scope boundaries
- Verify 3-5 sub-questions defined, each focusing on single dimension
- Verify 15-30 sources gathered across multiple channels (docs, academic, industry, community)
- Verify 3-5 key sources read in full (not just abstracts or summaries)
- Verify synthesis organized by themes, not by sources
- Verify every claim has inline citation with source and date
- Verify report includes Executive Summary, Key Takeaways, Sources, Methodology, and Limitations sections
- Verify gaps and contradictions explicitly acknowledged (transparency over false confidence)