clawdsolana Deep Research
OpenClawd Operator Adaptation
Run this skill as part of the OpenClawd operator deck. Preserve the skill-specific workflow below, but frame outputs for Solana-native agents when relevant: prefer OpenClawd language, note whether the work can support autonomous agent operations, and keep financial, legal, tax, hiring, medical, or other regulated outputs informational unless the skill already requires a stricter disclaimer. Use the Llobster Legend persona only as light operator framing; do not let branding override accuracy, safety, or the user's stated domain.
Conduct comprehensive, multi-source research on complex topics. Systematically gather, evaluate, triangulate, and synthesize information into structured reports with proper citations and source credibility scoring.
Autonomy Principle: Operate independently. Infer assumptions from context (technical query = technical audience, comparison = balanced perspective, trend = recent 1-2 years). Only stop for critical errors or incomprehensible queries.
When to Use
Activate this skill when the user's request matches any of these patterns:
Explicit research requests
"Research this," "find out about," "do a deep dive on"
"Write a research report on..."
"White paper on..." / "Briefing on..."
"Investigate [topic]"
Industry & market analysis
"What's the state of [industry/market]?"
"Survey the landscape of..."
"Competitive landscape of [industry]" (no stock tickers involved)
"Trend analysis on [topic]"
"How does [country/region] compare for [business activity]?"
Decision-support research
"Due diligence on [private company/market]" (non-public companies)
"What should I know before [entering a market / making a decision]?"
"Pros and cons of [strategy/approach/technology]"
"What are the risks of [strategy/market/decision]?"
"Benchmark [X] against [industry/peers]" (non-financial benchmarking)
Verification & evidence-based analysis
"Fact-check this" / "Is [claim] true?"
"What does the research say about..."
Needs to verify claims or compare conflicting information
Wants to understand a topic from multiple angles with cited sources
Academic & technical evaluation
- Literature review, technology evaluation, state-of-the-art survey
When NOT to Use
Simple factual lookups (1-2 searches) --> use web-search directly
Searching within the user's codebase --> use grep/glob
Replit-specific features --> use replit-docs skill
Specific stock tickers, public company financials, DCF models, portfolio analysis --> use stock-analyzer (it calls deep-research internally for web research)
"Analyze this dataset" with user-provided data --> use data-visualization
"Build a presentation on..." --> use slides skill
Decision Tree
Request Analysis
+-- Simple factual lookup (1-2 searches)? --> STOP: Use web-search directly
+-- Searching user's codebase? --> STOP: Use grep/glob
+-- Replit-specific feature question? --> STOP: Use replit-docs skill
+-- Mentions stock tickers or public company --> STOP: Use stock-analyzer
financials/valuations/DCF? (it calls deep-research internally)
+-- Wants to analyze a user-provided dataset? --> STOP: Use data-visualization
+-- Complex multi-angle analysis needed? --> CONTINUE to Depth Selection
Depth Selection
Select the research depth based on the request complexity. Default to standard when unclear.
| Tier | Subagents | Min Sources | Phases | Estimated Time | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick | 3 | 8 | 1, 2, 3, 7 | 2-5 min | Focused question, single domain, time-sensitive |
| Standard | 5 | 15 | 1-7 | 5-15 min | Most research requests, market analysis, technology evaluation |
| Deep | 5 + 2 gap-fill | 25 | 1-8 (all) | 15-30 min | Critical decisions, comprehensive reviews, multi-stakeholder analysis |
Selection heuristics
User says "quick overview" or "brief research" --> Quick
User says "research this" or "analyze" --> Standard
User says "deep dive," "comprehensive," or "exhaustive" --> Deep
Country/industry analysis, investment research --> Standard or Deep
Technology comparison with 3+ options --> Standard
Literature review, state-of-the-art survey --> Deep
Methodology
Phase 1: Scope Definition
Before starting research, clearly define:
Research question: What specific question(s) are you answering?
Scope boundaries: What is in/out of scope?
Depth tier: Quick, Standard, or Deep (see table above)
Audience: Technical, executive, general? (Infer from context if not stated)
Output expectations: Report format, approximate length
Then run 1-2 broad landscape searches to orient yourself and identify the focus areas for decomposition.
Phase 2: Planning & Decomposition
Decompose the topic into distinct, non-overlapping focus areas based on the depth tier:
Quick: 3 focus areas
Standard: 5 focus areas
Deep: 5 focus areas (gap-fill subagents added later in Phase 5)
How to decompose: After the broad landscape search, identify angles that together cover the full topic without significant overlap. For example, researching "state of electric vehicles 2026" might decompose into:
Market & Competition -- market share, sales figures, manufacturer rankings
Technology -- battery chemistry, charging standards, range improvements
Policy & Regulation -- government incentives, emissions mandates, trade tariffs
Infrastructure -- charging network growth, grid capacity, urban vs rural
Consumer & Economics -- total cost of ownership, resale value, adoption demographics
Phase 3: Parallel Source Discovery via Subagents
Launch all research subagents simultaneously using startAsyncSubagent. Each subagent gets a specific focus area, tailored search terms, and a structured output template.
Subagent task template
await startAsyncSubagent({
task: `Research FOCUS AREA: [Area Name]
Topic context: [1-2 sentence description of the overall research question]
Your job: Search for information specifically about [focus area]. Run at least 4 webSearch queries with different angles:
- [specific search term 1]
- [specific search term 2]
- [specific search term 3]
- [specific search term 4]
IMPORTANT - Local language searches: If this topic is specific to a non-English-speaking country or region, run at least 1-2 searches in the local language (e.g., Spanish for Latin America, Portuguese for Brazil, French for Francophone Africa). Primary government data, local media, and industry reports are often only available in the local language.
IMPORTANT - Source freshness: Note the publication date of every source. Flag any source older than 18 months on a fast-moving topic.
For the most promising results, use webFetch to read the full article. If webFetch returns empty content, try an alternative URL from the search results or run a more specific search query.
Return your findings using this EXACT structure:
## Key Facts
[Bullet list of key data points, each with source URL in parentheses]
## Notable Claims Requiring Cross-Reference
[Claims that seem important but only appear in one source, or that conflict with other findings]
## Source Quality Assessment
[For each source, rate: Tier 1 (government/multilateral/academic), Tier 2 (major publication/industry report), Tier 3 (blog/opinion/promotional). Note publication date.]
## Gaps & Unanswered Questions
[What you could not find or what needs deeper investigation]
## Sources
[Numbered list with title, URL, publication date (if available), and tier rating]
Minimum: 5 distinct sources with URLs`
});
Launch pattern
// Launch all subagents simultaneously
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 1: [Area] ...` });
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 2: [Area] ...` });
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 3: [Area] ...` });
// ... (3 for Quick, 5 for Standard/Deep)
Then call the wait_for_background_tasks tool to collect their results.
Each subagent should:
Run 4+
webSearchqueries with different phrasings and anglesInclude at least 1-2 local-language searches for country/region-specific topics
Use
webFetchon the 2-3 most relevant results to extract detailed dataRetry with alternative URLs if webFetch returns empty content
Return findings using the structured template above
Flag any claims that conflict with other results
Note publication dates and assess source freshness
This approach gathers 25+ distinct sources across focus areas simultaneously, producing far more comprehensive coverage than sequential searching.
Phase 4: Triangulation & Source Evaluation
After collecting all subagent results, systematically evaluate and cross-reference:
Source credibility tiers
| Tier | Description | Examples | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Government, multilateral, academic, official statistics | IMF, World Bank, central banks, peer-reviewed journals, SEC filings | Highest -- treat as ground truth unless contradicted by multiple Tier 1 sources |
| Tier 2 | Major publications, established industry reports, reputable news | Reuters, Bloomberg, Chambers & Partners, LAVCA, Big 4 reports | High -- reliable but verify key claims |
| Tier 3 | Industry blogs, company websites, opinion pieces, promotional content | Company press releases, consultant blogs, sponsored content | Supporting only -- never use as sole source for a claim |
Triangulation rules
Every major claim must be supported by 3+ sources (at least 2 Tier 1 or Tier 2)
When sources conflict on a data point, prefer: Tier 1 > Tier 2 > Tier 3, and more recent > older
When Tier 1 sources conflict with each other, present both figures and note the discrepancy
Flag any finding that rests on a single source, regardless of tier
Note the publication date of key data points; flag anything older than 18 months on fast-moving topics
Conflict resolution for quantitative data
When multiple sources report different numbers (e.g., GDP figures, market sizes):
Prefer the primary/official source (e.g., central bank over news article)
If both are primary sources, present the range and note the methodology difference
Never silently pick one number -- acknowledge the variance
Phase 5: Gap Analysis & Follow-Up (Standard and Deep tiers only)
Review the collected findings for completeness:
Identify claims with fewer than 3 supporting sources
Identify sections with thin coverage or missing data
Note unanswered questions flagged by subagents
Check whether any focus area returned significantly fewer sources than others
For Deep tier only: Launch 1-2 targeted follow-up subagents to fill the most critical gaps:
await startAsyncSubagent({
task: `GAP-FILL RESEARCH: [Specific gap identified]
Context: During initial research on [topic], we found insufficient data on [gap].
Your job: Run 3-4 targeted searches to fill this specific gap:
- [targeted search term 1]
- [targeted search term 2]
- [targeted search term 3]
Return findings using the same structured template as the initial research.`
});
Phase 6: Critique & Self-Review (Deep tier only)
Before writing the final report, conduct a critical self-review:
Weak claims: Are any findings supported by only Tier 3 sources? Downgrade or remove them.
Balance: Does the report present multiple perspectives, or does it lean toward one viewpoint?
Logical coherence: Do the findings tell a consistent story? Are there contradictions that need to be addressed?
Completeness: Does the report answer the original research question fully?
Freshness: Are key data points current, or are they based on outdated sources?
Speculation vs. fact: Is every claim clearly labeled as established fact, expert opinion, or speculation?
Phase 7: Report Writing & Synthesis
Write the report following these principles:
Writing style
Prose-first (80%+ prose). Write in flowing paragraphs, not bullet-point dumps. Bullets are acceptable for data tables, source lists, and comparison matrices -- but the analysis itself should be narrative.
Lead with the most important findings
Support every factual claim with an inline citation [N] referencing the numbered source list
Acknowledge limitations and uncertainties explicitly
Distinguish clearly between established facts, expert opinions, and speculation
Provide actionable recommendations where appropriate
Section word count guidance
| Section | Target Length |
|---|---|
| Executive Summary | 200-400 words |
| Background/Context | 200-500 words |
| Each Major Finding | 400-1,500 words |
| Analysis/Synthesis | 500-1,000 words |
| Limitations | 100-300 words |
| Recommendations | 200-500 words |
Quality gates (must pass before delivering)
| Gate | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Source count | Quick: 8+, Standard: 15+, Deep: 25+ |
| Claims per finding | 3+ sources supporting each major claim |
| Citation coverage | Every factual claim has an inline [N] citation |
| No placeholders | Zero "TBD," "to be determined," or "[need source]" entries |
| Source list complete | Every [N] citation maps to a numbered source with URL |
| Freshness | Key data points are from the last 18 months (flagged if older) |
| Prose ratio | 80%+ of analysis sections are prose, not bullets |
Output Format
Research Report Structure
# [Research Topic]
**Research Date:** [Date]
**Depth:** [Quick / Standard / Deep]
**Sources Consulted:** [Number]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph overview of key findings and conclusions. 200-400 words.]
## Background
[Context needed to understand the topic. 200-500 words.]
## Key Findings
### Finding 1: [Theme]
[Detailed prose analysis with inline source citations [N]. 400-1,500 words.]
### Finding 2: [Theme]
[Detailed prose analysis with inline source citations [N]. 400-1,500 words.]
### Finding 3: [Theme]
[Detailed prose analysis with inline source citations [N]. 400-1,500 words.]
[Additional findings as needed -- typically 4-8 for Standard/Deep]
## Analysis
[Cross-cutting analysis, patterns, implications. Draw connections between
findings that reveal insights not visible in any single section. 500-1,000 words.]
## Limitations
[What couldn't be determined, data gaps, source constraints, caveats. 100-300 words.]
## Recommendations
[Actionable next steps based on findings. 200-500 words.]
## Sources
[Numbered list of all sources with: title, URL, publication date, tier rating]
1. [Title] -- [URL] (Published: [date], Tier [1/2/3])
2. ...
Example Workflow
// Phase 1: Scope -- broad landscape search
const overview = await webSearch({ query: "state of electric vehicle market 2026" });
// Determine depth tier (Standard for this example)
// Identify 5 focus areas from overview results
// Phase 3: Launch 5 parallel research subagents
await startAsyncSubagent({
task: `Research FOCUS AREA 1: EV Market & Competition
Topic context: Comprehensive analysis of the global electric vehicle industry in 2026.
Your job: Search for information specifically about EV market share, sales figures, and manufacturer rankings. Run at least 4 webSearch queries:
- "EV market share by manufacturer 2025 2026"
- "electric vehicle sales global rankings"
- "Tesla BYD market share comparison 2026"
- "electric vehicle market size revenue 2026"
For country-specific angles, also search in relevant local languages.
If webFetch returns empty content, try alternative URLs.
Return findings using the structured template with Key Facts, Notable Claims, Source Quality Assessment, Gaps, and Sources.`
});
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 2: EV Battery Technology ...` });
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 3: EV Policy & Regulation ...` });
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 4: EV Charging Infrastructure ...` });
await startAsyncSubagent({ task: `Research FOCUS AREA 5: EV Consumer Economics ...` });
// Phase 4: Triangulate -- evaluate sources, resolve conflicts, score credibility
// Phase 5: Gap analysis -- identify weak spots, launch follow-up if Deep tier
// Phase 6: Critique -- self-review for Deep tier
// Phase 7: Write the report following quality gates and prose-first style
// Save to research/[topic].md and present to user
After the launch block above, call the wait_for_background_tasks tool to wait for subagents, then proceed to Phase 4.
Best Practices
Cast a wide net first, then narrow -- start with broad searches before diving into specifics
Cross-reference critical claims -- never rely on a single source for important facts; require 3+ sources for major claims
Cite everything inline -- every factual claim should have a [N] citation immediately following it
Note disagreements -- when sources conflict, present both sides and analyze why
Timestamp your research -- note when the research was conducted, as information changes
Separate facts from analysis -- clearly distinguish between what sources say and your interpretation
Search in local languages -- for country/region-specific research, primary sources are often only in the local language
Handle fetch failures gracefully -- if webFetch returns empty content, try alternative URLs or run more targeted search queries
Prefer authoritative sources -- when numbers conflict, prefer Tier 1 (government/multilateral) over Tier 2 (publications) over Tier 3 (blogs/promotional)
Flag stale data -- note when key data points are older than 18 months on fast-moving topics
Limitations
Cannot access paywalled academic journals or subscription databases
Cannot access social media content (LinkedIn, Twitter, Reddit)
Web sources may have varying levels of reliability
Research is a snapshot in time -- findings may change
Cannot conduct primary research (surveys, interviews, experiments)
webFetch may fail on some pages (JavaScript-heavy sites, paywalled content); mitigate with retry and alternative URLs