Deep Research

Deep Research — Universal Academic Research Agent Team

Universal deep research tool — a domain-agnostic 13-agent team for rigorous academic research on any topic.

v2.4 adds writing quality improvements to the report compiler:

• Style Profile consumption (optional) — If a Style Profile is available from academic-paper intake, the report compiler applies it as a soft guide for the Executive Summary and Synthesis sections. Discipline conventions and report objectivity take priority.
• Writing Quality Check — The report compiler runs a writing quality checklist before finalizing: flags AI-typical overused terms, checks sentence/paragraph length variation, removes throat-clearing openers. See academic-paper/references/writing_quality_check.md.

Routing discipline (v3.9.2): see .claude/CLAUDE.md "Routing Discipline (v3.9.2)" + shared/references/intent_clarification_protocol.md for cross-skill routing rules. This skill assumes routing has already settled — ambiguous cross-phase materials should have been clarified upstream.

Quick Start

Minimal command:

Research the impact of AI on higher education quality assurance

Socratic mode:

Guide my research on the impact of declining birth rates on private universities
引導我的研究：少子化對私立大學的影響
幫我釐清我的研究方向，我對高教品保有興趣但還不太確定

Execution:

1. Scoping — Research question + methodology blueprint
2. Investigation — Systematic literature search + source verification
3. Analysis — Cross-source synthesis + bias check
4. Composition — Full APA 7.0 report
5. Review — Editorial + ethics + vulnerability scan
6. Revision — Final polished report

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

English: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, methodology, APA report, academic analysis, policy analysis, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, monitor this topic, set up alerts

繁體中文: 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 證據綜整, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, WHY HOW WHAT 論文比較, 研究方法, 學術分析, 政策分析, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 監測這個主題, 設定追蹤

Socratic Mode Activation

Activate socratic mode when the user's intent matches any of the following patterns, regardless of language. Detect meaning, not exact keywords.

Intent signals (any one is sufficient):

1. User has no clear research question and wants guided thinking
2. User asks to be "led", "guided", or "mentored" through research
3. User expresses uncertainty about what to research or where to start
4. User wants to brainstorm, explore, or clarify a research direction
5. User describes a vague interest without a specific, answerable question

Default rule: When intent is ambiguous between socratic and full, prefer socratic — it is safer to guide first than to produce an unwanted report. The user can always switch to full later.

Example triggers (illustrative, not exhaustive): "guide my research", "help me think through", 「引導我的研究」「幫我釐清」, or equivalent in any language

Does NOT Trigger

Quick Mode Selection Guide

Spectrum (v3.2): fidelity = template-heavy, predictable output; balanced = default; originality = exploratory, template-light. See shared/mode_spectrum.md for the full cross-skill spectrum table.

Not sure? Start with socratic — it will help you figure out what you need. 不確定？先用 socratic 模式——它會幫你釐清你需要什麼。

Agent Team (13 Agents)

Mode Selection Guide

See references/mode_selection_guide.md for the detailed guide.

User Input
    |
    +-- Already have a clear research question?
    |   +-- Yes --> Need PRISMA-compliant systematic review / meta-analysis?
    |   |           +-- Yes --> systematic-review mode
    |   |           +-- No --> Need a full report?
    |   |                      +-- Yes --> full mode
    |   |                      +-- No --> Only need literature?
    |   |                                 +-- Yes --> Need rapid paper comparison?
    |   |                                            +-- Yes --> three-way-scan mode
    |   |                                            +-- No --> lit-review mode
    |   |                                 +-- No --> quick mode
    |   +-- No --> Want to be guided through thinking?
    |              +-- Yes --> socratic mode
    |              +-- No --> full mode (Phase 1 will be interactive)
    |
    +-- Already have text to review? --> review mode
    +-- Only need fact-checking? --> fact-check mode

Orchestration Workflow (6 Phases)

User: "Research [topic]"
     |
=== Phase 1: SCOPING (Interactive) ===
     |
     |-> [research_question_agent] -> RQ Brief
     |   - FINER criteria scoring (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant)
     |   - Scope boundaries (in-scope / out-of-scope)
     |   - 2-3 sub-questions
     |
     |-> [research_architect_agent] -> Methodology Blueprint
     |   - Research paradigm (positivist / interpretivist / pragmatist)
     |   - Method selection (qualitative / quantitative / mixed)
     |   - Data strategy (primary / secondary / both)
     |   - Analytical framework
     |   - Validity & reliability criteria
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 1
         - RQ clarity and answerable?
         - Method appropriate for question?
         - Scope too broad or too narrow?
         - Verdict: PASS / REVISE (with specific feedback)
     |
     ** User confirmation before Phase 2 **
     |
=== Phase 2: INVESTIGATION ===
     |
     |-> [bibliography_agent] -> Source Corpus + Annotated Bibliography
     |   - Systematic search strategy (databases, keywords, Boolean)
     |   - Inclusion/exclusion criteria
     |   - PRISMA-style flow (if applicable)
     |   - Annotated bibliography (APA 7.0)
     |
     +-> [source_verification_agent] -> Verified & Graded Sources
         - Evidence hierarchy grading (Level I-VII)
         - Predatory journal screening
         - Conflict-of-interest flagging
         - Currency assessment (publication date relevance)
         - Source quality matrix
     |
=== Phase 3: ANALYSIS ===
     |
     |-> [synthesis_agent] -> Synthesis Narrative + Gap Analysis
     |   - Thematic synthesis across sources
     |   - Contradiction identification & resolution
     |   - Evidence convergence/divergence mapping
     |   - Knowledge gap analysis
     |   - Theoretical framework integration
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 2
         - Cherry-picking check
         - Confirmation bias detection
         - Logic chain validation
         - Alternative explanations explored?
         - Verdict: PASS / REVISE
     |
=== Phase 4: COMPOSITION ===
     |
     +-> [report_compiler_agent] -> Full APA 7.0 Draft
         - Title Page
         - Abstract (150-250 words)
         - Introduction (context, problem, purpose, RQ)
         - Literature Review / Theoretical Framework
         - Methodology
         - Findings / Results
         - Discussion (interpretation, implications, limitations)
         - Conclusion & Recommendations
         - References (APA 7.0)
         - Appendices (if applicable)
     |
=== Phase 5: REVIEW (Parallel) ===
     |
     |-> [editor_in_chief_agent] -> Editorial Verdict + Line Feedback
     |   - Originality assessment
     |   - Methodological rigor
     |   - Evidence sufficiency
     |   - Argument coherence
     |   - Writing quality (clarity, conciseness, flow)
     |   - Verdict: ACCEPT / MINOR REVISION / MAJOR REVISION / REJECT
     |
     |-> [ethics_review_agent] -> Ethics Clearance
     |   - AI disclosure compliance
     |   - Attribution integrity
     |   - Dual-use screening
     |   - Fair representation check
     |   - Verdict: CLEARED / CONDITIONAL / BLOCKED
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_agent] -- CHECKPOINT 3
         - Final vulnerability scan
         - Strongest counter-argument test
         - "So what?" significance check
         - Verdict: PASS / REVISE
     |
=== Phase 6: REVISION ===
     |
     +-> [report_compiler_agent] -> Final Report
         - Address editorial feedback
         - Resolve ethics conditions
         - Incorporate devil's advocate insights
         - Max 2 revision loops
         - Remaining issues -> "Acknowledged Limitations" section

Checkpoint Rules

1. ⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate has 3 mandatory checkpoints; Critical-severity issues block progression
2. Revision loops capped at 2 iterations; remaining issues become "acknowledged limitations"
3. ⚠️ IRON RULE: Ethics Review stops the user once to confirm a Critical integrity concern (fabrication / plagiarism / missing AI disclosure / source misrepresentation / concrete harm-enabling specifics). Overridable with recorded reasoning — it confirms, it does not veto. Subject matter alone never blocks; dual-use is advisory (Responsible Use Statement), not a block.
4. User confirmation required after Phase 1 before proceeding

Phase-by-phase Invocation Contract (v3.9.2)

ARS pipeline runs in 6 phases. Two invocation modes:

Mode A — orchestrator-driven (default): pipeline_orchestrator_agent (in academic-pipeline skill) runs all phases end-to-end with state tracking via Material Passport.

Mode B — phase-by-phase (cross-session resume): User invokes one agent per phase across sessions for long-running projects. Common pattern via ARS_PASSPORT_RESET=1 + resume_from_passport=<hash> (see academic-pipeline/references/passport_as_reset_boundary.md).

In Mode B, single-phase agents (Bucket A per docs/design/2026-05-18-ars-v3.9.2-agent-phase-classification.md) stay strictly within their assigned phase for writes. Reads from upstream phases are allowed. Multi-phase agents (Bucket B: devils_advocate_agent, report_compiler_agent) do exactly the work specified by the caller's invocation for that phase — no extension to other phases in the same call.

Routing into Mode B requires explicit user signal — /ars-<mode> slash command or [direct-mode] prefix. Ambiguous cross-phase input defaults to clarification per .claude/CLAUDE.md Routing Discipline + shared/references/intent_clarification_protocol.md.

Enforcement (v3.9.2): Phase Boundary blocks on Bucket A agents + advisory verifier (scripts/check_pipeline_integrity.py) + a deterministic PreToolUse write-scope guard in hook-enabled runtimes (#134 rescope, PR #294). Multi-phase envelope remains forward-scope (#134 Slices 3-5).

Socratic Mode: Guided Research Dialogue

5-layer dialogue guiding users from vague ideas to concrete research questions. Core principle: ⚠️ IRON RULE: Never give direct answers.

Layers: Clarification -> Assumption Probing -> Evidence/Reasoning -> Viewpoint/Perspective -> Implication/Consequence

See references/socratic_mode_protocol.md for the full 5-layer dialogue flow, management rules, and auto-end conditions.

Opt-in Reading Probe (v3.5.1)

Setting ARS_SOCRATIC_READING_PROBE=1 enables a one-time honesty probe during goal-oriented Socratic sessions. When the user cites a specific paper, the Mentor asks them to paraphrase one passage. Decline is logged without penalty. Default OFF. See agents/socratic_mentor_agent.md §"Optional Reading Probe Layer".

Systematic Review Mode

PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Follows 5-phase protocol: Protocol Registration -> Systematic Search -> Screening & Selection -> Data Extraction & RoB -> Synthesis & Reporting.

v3.4.0 compliance: systematic-review mode triggers compliance_agent at Stage 2.5 (Methods items) and Stage 4.5 (remaining items + RAISE 8-role matrix). PRISMA-trAIce Mandatory failures block the pipeline. See shared/compliance_checkpoint_protocol.md.

See references/systematic_review_protocol.md for full PRISMA pipeline, checkpoint rules, and meta-analysis procedures.

Operational Modes

Three-Way Scan Mode (WHY / HOW / WHAT)

Use three-way-scan when the user needs a disciplined shortlist of papers compared in a stable frame, but does not yet need a full literature review report.

• WHY: what problem or bottleneck the paper addresses and why it matters
• HOW: what strategy, method, or technical route the paper uses
• WHAT: what the paper found, built, or still leaves unresolved

This mode is intentionally lighter than lit-review. It prioritizes:

1. candidate retrieval
2. deduplication
3. compact per-paper extraction
4. cross-paper synthesis of shared WHY, divergent HOW, and remaining gaps

Recommended per-paper output:

## <paper title>
Source: <provider> | Year: <year> | Link: <url>

- WHY: ...
- HOW: ...
- WHAT: ...

Then add:

• common WHY
• divergent HOW
• strongest WHAT
• unresolved global gap

If the user later wants a broader evidence matrix, thematic synthesis, or PRISMA-like coverage, escalate from three-way-scan to lit-review or systematic-review.

Failure Paths

See references/failure_paths.md for all failure scenarios, trigger conditions, and recovery strategies across all modes.

Key failure path summary:

Literature Monitoring (Optional Post-Pipeline)

Optional post-research monitoring for new publications in the research area.

See references/literature_monitoring_strategies.md for setup instructions across academic databases.

Handoff Protocol: deep-research → academic-paper

After research is complete, the following materials can be handed off to academic-paper:

1. Research Question Brief (from research_question_agent)
2. Methodology Blueprint (from research_architect_agent)
3. Annotated Bibliography (from bibliography_agent)
4. Synthesis Report (from synthesis_agent)
5. [If socratic mode] INSIGHT Collection and Research Plan Summary

Trigger: User says "now help me write a paper" or "write a paper based on this"

academic-paper's intake_agent will automatically detect available materials and skip redundant steps:

• Has RQ Brief -> skip topic scoping
• Has Bibliography -> skip literature search
• Has Synthesis -> accelerate findings / discussion writing

See examples/handoff_to_paper.md for a detailed handoff example.

Full Academic Pipeline

See academic-pipeline/SKILL.md for the complete workflow.

Agent File References

Reference Files

Templates

Examples

Output Language

Follows the user's language. Academic terminology kept in English. Socratic mode uses natural conversational style.

Anti-Patterns

Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes:

Quality Standards

1. ⚠️ IRON RULE: Every claim must have a citation — no unsupported assertions
2. Evidence hierarchy — meta-analyses > RCTs > cohort studies > case reports > expert opinion (field-neutral baseline; grading is discipline-relative — a source meeting its own field's gold standard can reach Grade A even at a low design level. See references/source_quality_hierarchy.md §Grading Rubric + §Field-Specific Adjustments)
3. Contradiction disclosure — if sources disagree, report both sides with evidence quality comparison
4. Limitation transparency — every report must have an explicit limitations section
5. AI disclosure — all reports include a statement that AI-assisted research tools were used
6. Reproducibility — search strategies, inclusion criteria, and analytical methods must be documented for replication
7. Socratic integrity — in socratic mode, never give direct answers; always guide through questions

Cross-Agent Quality Alignment

Unified definitions across all agents. ⚠️ IRON RULE: CRITICAL severity = issue that would invalidate a core conclusion or constitute academic misconduct. Requires immediate resolution.

See references/cross_agent_quality_definitions.md for full peer-reviewed source tiers, currency standards, and severity definitions.

Integration with Other Skills

This skill is domain-agnostic but can be combined with domain-specific skills:

deep-research + tw-hei-intelligence     -> Evidence-based HEI policy research
deep-research + report-to-website       -> Interactive research report
deep-research + podcast-script-generator -> Research podcast
deep-research + academic-paper          -> Full research-to-publication pipeline
deep-research (socratic) + academic-paper (plan) -> Guided research + paper planning
deep-research (systematic-review) + academic-paper -> PRISMA systematic review paper

Version Info

Version History

See references/changelog.md for full version history.