Researching Skill
Use when the how is unclear; output is a chosen approach with evidence.
Prerequisites: If what/why is unclear, use discovering skill first.
Quick Reference
| Track |
When |
Output |
| Fast (default) |
Standard decisions |
Brief: problem, decision, risks |
| Full |
API/security/multi-subsystem |
Research brief + optional design doc |
When to Use
- Requirements are fuzzy or incomplete
- Multiple plausible approaches exist (spike, proof of concept needed)
- Change affects architecture, API, data, or security
Skip if: obvious bug, trivial change, pattern already exists.
Fast vs Full Track
Is it high-risk?
├── No → Fast Track (default)
└── Yes → Full Track
├── Changes public API
├── Security/data implications
├── Team disagreement
└── Touches multiple subsystems
Core Rule
Evidence before opinions. Never recommend anything until facts are gathered:
what already exists in code, which constraints are real, what decisions were
made before. If evidence is missing — label it as assumption and lower
confidence.
Quick Rules
- One question at a time while clarifying requirements
- If multiple interpretations exist, clarify before researching
- State assumptions explicitly with confidence (H/M/L)
When to Ask vs Act
Ask (one question at a time; prefer multiple choice) if:
- Multiple interpretations
- Critical context missing
- Answer would change direction
Act (state assumptions + confidence) if:
- Default interpretation is clear
- Request is specific
- Assumptions are easy to verify
Workflow
Fast Track (default)
- Clarify & Frame — purpose, constraints, success criteria
- Collect Signals — code, docs, history
- Options + Decision — 2-3 options, pick one
- Brief — Problem (1-2 sentences), Decision, Key Risks (1-3 bullets)
Full Track
| Phase |
Focus |
Output |
| 0. Frame |
Problem, non-goals, success criteria |
Constraints |
| 1. Signals |
Code, docs, history |
Current state + assumptions |
| 2. Options |
2-4 approaches with trade-offs |
Comparison |
| 3. Evaluate |
Decide using Phase 0 criteria |
Recommendation + fallback plan |
| 4. Artifacts |
Research brief (always) |
Optional: design doc |
Research Brief template: Problem & Context → Constraints → Current State →
Options Compared → Recommendation → Risks
Stop Conditions
Stop research when:
- Decision criteria are satisfied
- Remaining unknowns won't change the decision
- Next step is prototype/measurement
Best Practices
- Assumptions + Confidence — label assumptions (H/M/L), propose quick
validation
- Spike as Research — 30-90 min spike with clear question and success metric
- Checkpoints (Full Track) — after each phase: "Constraints complete? Which
risks matter?"
Delegate
- Use explorer subagent to collect evidence from code/docs/history and
dependency/workspace structure before comparing options
- Use sequential-thinking MCP for complex trade-off analysis
After Research
Use blueprinting skill to create implementation blueprint.
Pipeline: discovering → researching → blueprinting → implementing →
code-review
Common Mistakes
| Mistake |
Fix |
| Recommend without evidence |
Gather facts first, then opinions |
| Single option, no alternatives |
Always 2-3 options with trade-offs |
| Drift into tangential topics |
Stay connected to problem statement |
| Hide uncertainty behind confidence |
State unknowns explicitly |
| Finalize with disputed framing |
Resolve framing first |
1---2name: researching3description: Evaluate technical options with evidence and choose an approach. Use when requirements are fuzzy, multiple technical approaches exist, or change affects architecture, API, data, or security4---56# Researching Skill78Use when the how is unclear; output is a chosen approach with evidence.910**Prerequisites:** If what/why is unclear, use **discovering** skill first.1112## Quick Reference1314| Track | When | Output |15| -------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |16| Fast (default) | Standard decisions | Brief: problem, decision, risks |17| Full | API/security/multi-subsystem | Research brief + optional design doc |1819## When to Use2021- Requirements are fuzzy or incomplete22- Multiple plausible approaches exist (spike, proof of concept needed)23- Change affects architecture, API, data, or security2425Skip if: obvious bug, trivial change, pattern already exists.2627## Fast vs Full Track2829```30Is it high-risk?31├── No → Fast Track (default)32└── Yes → Full Track33 ├── Changes public API34 ├── Security/data implications35 ├── Team disagreement36 └── Touches multiple subsystems37```3839## Core Rule4041**Evidence before opinions.** Never recommend anything until facts are gathered:42what already exists in code, which constraints are real, what decisions were43made before. If evidence is missing — label it as assumption and lower44confidence.4546## Quick Rules4748- One question at a time while clarifying requirements49- If multiple interpretations exist, clarify before researching50- State assumptions explicitly with confidence (H/M/L)5152## When to Ask vs Act5354**Ask** (one question at a time; prefer multiple choice) if:5556- Multiple interpretations57- Critical context missing58- Answer would change direction5960**Act** (state assumptions + confidence) if:6162- Default interpretation is clear63- Request is specific64- Assumptions are easy to verify6566## Workflow6768### Fast Track (default)69701. **Clarify & Frame** — purpose, constraints, success criteria712. **Collect Signals** — code, docs, history723. **Options + Decision** — 2-3 options, pick one734. **Brief** — Problem (1-2 sentences), Decision, Key Risks (1-3 bullets)7475### Full Track7677| Phase | Focus | Output |78| ------------ | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ |79| 0. Frame | Problem, non-goals, success criteria | Constraints |80| 1. Signals | Code, docs, history | Current state + assumptions |81| 2. Options | 2-4 approaches with trade-offs | Comparison |82| 3. Evaluate | Decide using Phase 0 criteria | Recommendation + fallback plan |83| 4. Artifacts | Research brief (always) | Optional: design doc |8485**Research Brief template:** Problem & Context → Constraints → Current State →86Options Compared → Recommendation → Risks8788## Stop Conditions8990Stop research when:9192- Decision criteria are satisfied93- Remaining unknowns won't change the decision94- Next step is prototype/measurement9596## Best Practices9798- **Assumptions + Confidence** — label assumptions (H/M/L), propose quick99 validation100- **Spike as Research** — 30-90 min spike with clear question and success metric101- **Checkpoints (Full Track)** — after each phase: "Constraints complete? Which102 risks matter?"103104## Delegate105106- Use **explorer** subagent to collect evidence from code/docs/history and107 dependency/workspace structure before comparing options108- Use **sequential-thinking** MCP for complex trade-off analysis109110## After Research111112Use **blueprinting** skill to create implementation blueprint.113114Pipeline: discovering → **researching** → blueprinting → implementing →115code-review116117## Common Mistakes118119| Mistake | Fix |120| ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |121| Recommend without evidence | Gather facts first, then opinions |122| Single option, no alternatives | Always 2-3 options with trade-offs |123| Drift into tangential topics | Stay connected to problem statement |124| Hide uncertainty behind confidence | State unknowns explicitly |125| Finalize with disputed framing | Resolve framing first |