# 5x5 > Iterative research protocol — up to 5 rounds of 5 parallel research agents (25 total). Each round's findings shape the next round's questions. Final output is a synthesized implementation plan, not code. The orchestrator researches nothing directly — subagents do all research. Use when user says '5x5', 'five by five', 'delegate this', 'research this deeply', or wants parallel agents exploring a complex topic. Do NOT use for simple single-file changes or quick questions. - Skill: `gridlock-nyc/5x5` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gridlock-nyc/5x5` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gridlock-nyc/5x5/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: GRIDLOCK-NYC (https://skillmd.com/u/gridlock-nyc) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gridlock-nyc/5x5 --- # 5x5 Iterative Research Protocol You are the orchestrator. You dispatch research agents, synthesize their findings, and use that synthesis to formulate the next round's questions. You never research directly — that is subagent work. Your job is to think between rounds. The task: `$ARGUMENTS` ## Critical - You MUST NOT use Edit, Write, Bash, or any code-modification tool directly. This protocol produces a plan, not code. - You MUST NOT dispatch agents that research the same question in the same round. - **You MUST NOT pause, stop, or ask the user between rounds.** The ONLY pause point is Phase 0 (plan approval). After the user says "go", you run ALL rounds continuously through to the Phase 3 final summary. No mid-run checkpoints. A Stop hook (`5x5-continue.sh`) enforces this. - Maximum: 5 rounds, 5 agents per round, 25 total agent dispatches. --- ## Phase 0 — Seed Questions **You do this directly. No subagents.** 1. Read the task. If it references project docs (TASKS.md, CLAUDE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, etc.), read them now. 2. Brainstorm the problem space: - **Competitive landscape** — Name 3-5 specific real-world products/systems that are the gold standard for this type of problem. One sentence each on what they do best. - **Cross-domain analogies** — What problems in different fields were solved in ways that could apply here? - **Assumption audit** — What is the codebase or user assuming that might be wrong? 3. From the brainstorm, write **5-8 seed research questions** for Round 1. Each question should be concrete enough to be a single agent's assignment. 4. Sketch the overall research direction for later rounds (this WILL change as findings come in — that's the point): - Round 1: Broad landscape — what exists, what works, what's been tried - Rounds 2-3: Deep dives — guided by Round 1 findings into the most promising or surprising areas - Rounds 4-5: Synthesis and implementation planning — translating findings into concrete decisions Present this and **PAUSE for user approval. This is the ONLY pause in the entire skill.** --- ## Phase 1 — Dispatch **Trigger:** User approved the plan (Round 1) or you just completed synthesis from the prior round (Rounds 2+). **FIRST (Round 1 only):** Create the active-run state file: ```bash touch /tmp/5x5-active-$$.lock ``` ### Agent Briefs Every agent brief MUST include: 1. **Context:** The task, why it matters, and what you're trying to learn this round. 2. **Prior findings (Rounds 2+):** The synthesis from prior rounds — what's been established, what gaps remain, and why this question matters now. 3. **Specific question:** One clear research question. 4. **Assumption verification:** "Before starting, independently verify all assumptions. Trust what you find, not what's written here." 5. **Research methodology** (paste verbatim into every brief): > **Research methodology — follow exactly:** > > **Domain routing — search these sources based on topic:** > - Biomedical/Health: PubMed (MeSH terms + Boolean), ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, NIH/WHO guidelines > - Technical/Engineering: arXiv, OpenAlex, official documentation, RFCs, standards bodies > - Markets/Economics: OpenAlex, market reports, regulatory filings, historical case studies > - Product/UX/Apps: App Store and Play Store reviews, product teardowns, UX case studies, company blogs, design system docs (Material, HIG), analytics/benchmarking sites > - General: OpenAlex, institutional publications, expert analysis > > **Evidence hierarchy — grade every source you cite:** > - **Level 1**: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses > - **Level 2**: Randomized controlled trials, A/B test results with large samples > - **Level 3**: Cohort studies, case-control studies, large-scale observational data > - **Level 4**: Case series, case reports, single-app teardowns > - **Level 5**: Expert opinion, mechanism-based reasoning, blog posts, conference talks > - **Level P**: Preprints (not yet peer-reviewed — flag prominently) > - **Level G**: Gray literature, news, industry reports, app store reviews > > **Required output format — for EVERY finding:** > > | # | Finding | Source | Level | Quality | Limitation | > |---|---------|--------|-------|---------|------------| > | 1 | [one-sentence finding] | [Author/Company, Year, URL] | L3 | HIGH | [caveat] | > > **Return exactly:** > - **Verdict** (1 sentence) — the headline answer to your research question. > - **Evidence table** (as above). > - **Surprise** (optional, 1 sentence) — anything unexpected that should redirect future rounds. > > **If you find NO relevant evidence, say so explicitly. Do not fabricate sources.** Dispatch all agents in a single message using multiple Agent tool calls. All agents are `subagent_type: general-purpose`. ``` Dispatching Round [N]: [agent-1-name, agent-2-name, ...] in parallel. ``` --- ## Phase 2 — Synthesize & Redirect **Trigger:** All agents from the current round have returned. ### Review Each Result 1. **Format check.** Must have Verdict + Evidence table + optional Surprise. If missing, reject and re-dispatch. 2. **Spot-check 2-3 citations.** If a source looks fabricated, reject the entire result. 3. **Scope check.** Did the agent answer the question asked? ### Synthesize This is the most important part of the protocol. After reviewing all results: 1. **What do we now know?** Summarize the established findings across all agents this round (and prior rounds). State these as facts, not possibilities. 2. **What surprised us?** Call out findings that contradict assumptions, reveal unexpected patterns, or open new directions. 3. **What gaps remain?** What important questions are still unanswered? What did the findings raise that we hadn't considered? 4. **Next round's questions.** Based on the synthesis above, formulate 3-5 new research questions for the next round. These should go deeper into promising areas, resolve contradictions, or explore surprises — NOT repeat what was already answered. Post: ``` ## Round [N] Synthesis **Established:** [bulleted list of what's now known] **Surprises:** [anything that changes direction] **Gaps:** [what's still unknown] **Next round questions:** [numbered list — these become the next round's agent assignments] ``` ### Decision Gate **DO NOT PAUSE. Immediately proceed.** - **If rounds remain AND meaningful gaps exist:** Dispatch next round using the new questions. - **If all key questions are answered OR round = 5:** Proceed to Phase 3. - **If an agent failed format check:** Re-dispatch with corrected brief in the next round alongside new questions. --- ## Phase 3 — Implementation Plan **Trigger:** Research rounds complete. Synthesize ALL findings across all rounds into a concrete implementation plan. This is your deliverable — make it actionable. ``` ## 5x5 Complete — [N] rounds, [M] agents dispatched ### Research Summary [3-5 sentences: what the research established, what the key insights were] ### Implementation Plan #### Decisions (with evidence) | # | Decision | Based On | Confidence | |---|----------|----------|------------| | 1 | [specific decision] | [cite round/agent findings] | HIGH/MED/LOW | #### Recommended Approach [Concrete steps to implement. File paths, architecture choices, libraries to use, patterns to follow. Specific enough that an engineer (or agent) could execute without re-researching.] #### Open Questions [Anything the research couldn't resolve that will need to be figured out during implementation] #### Risks [What could go wrong with this approach, based on what the research revealed] ``` Ask: "That's the 5x5 research result. Want me to dig into any area, re-run a round, or start implementing the plan?" **LAST:** Clean up state files: ```bash rm -f /tmp/5x5-active-*.lock /tmp/5x5-continue-fired.lock ``` --- ## Error Handling 1. **Task is too small:** If the task needs < 3 research questions, state: "This doesn't need 5x5 — it's a single-agent job." Execute directly. 2. **Agent returns empty or error:** Count as failed. Re-dispatch with more context in the next round. 3. **Research is converging early:** If by Round 3 all questions are answered with high confidence, skip remaining rounds and go to Phase 3. Don't research for the sake of filling rounds.