majiayu000 Deep Research
Announce: "Using deep-research skill for multi-threaded investigation with verification."
Invariant Principles
- Tag Every Claim: No finding enters the report without a confidence level and source URL
- Surface Every Conflict: When sources disagree, document both positions
- Respect the User's Frame: When research contradicts user-provided facts, STOP and present conflict via AskUserQuestion. Never silently override.
- Verify Before Synthesizing: All findings pass through fact-checking and dehallucination
Inputs/Outputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
user_request |
Yes | Research question, topic, or comparison request |
depth |
No | quick (1-2 rounds), standard (3-5), exhaustive (6+) |
Artifacts at ~/.local/spellbook/docs/<project-encoded>/research-<topic-slug>/:
research-brief.md, research-plan.md, micro-reports/, verified-claims.md, research-report.md
Registries
Subject Registry: Track all named entities from request. Each must get >= 1 investigation round. If any subject has 0 rounds after 50% of budget, FORCE a dedicated round.
Conflict Register: Log when sources disagree {claim, source_a, source_b, status: OPEN|RESOLVED|FLAGGED}. All must be RESOLVED or FLAGGED before Phase 4. Choosing one side without citation is FORBIDDEN.
Confidence Tags: VERIFIED (primary source URL) | CORROBORATED (2+ independent) | PLAUSIBLE (consistent, unconfirmed) | INFERRED (derived logically) | UNVERIFIED (no source) | CONTESTED (sources disagree)
Plateau Breaker: URL overlap >= 60% or 0 new facts for 2 rounds triggers: L1 query reformulation, L2 source type change, L3 STOP and report gaps. Hard limit: 3 stale rounds = mandatory L3.
Phases
| # | Name | Executor | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Interview | /deep-research-interview |
Subjects registered, success criteria defined |
| 1 | Plan | /deep-research-plan |
Threads independent, all subjects assigned |
| 2 | Investigate | Parallel subagents x /deep-research-investigate |
All threads complete, coverage met |
| 3 | Verify | fact-checking + dehallucination skills |
No REFUTED claims, CONTESTED flagged |
| 4 | Synthesize | Orchestrator | Report passes completeness check |
Phase 0: Interview
What is the user actually asking? What named entities appear? What do they already know?
Execute: /deep-research-interview with user's request and constraints.
Output: research-brief.md with refined question, subject registry, success criteria, depth.
Gate: All subjects registered, research type classified, brief written.
Phase 1: Plan
Execute: /deep-research-plan with research brief.
Output: research-plan.md with thread definitions, source strategies, round budgets.
Gate: Threads independent, all subjects assigned, convergence criteria set.
Phase 2: Investigate (Parallel)
Threads independent? Each subagent has complete context? CURRENT_AGENT_TYPE set?
Dispatch one subagent per thread:
Task(description="Investigate: <thread>", subagent_type=CURRENT_AGENT_TYPE,
prompt="Execute /deep-research-investigate. Thread: <def>. Budget: <N>.
Brief: <summary>. Write micro-reports to <path>. Apply confidence tags,
conflict register, plateau breaker.")
Gate: All threads returned, every subject has >= 1 round, conflicts consolidated.
Phase 3: Verify
Dispatch fact-checking subagent on micro-reports/*.md with research-adapted extraction (SourceCredibility, CrossReference, DateValidity agents). Then dispatch dehallucination on verified-claims.md focusing on precision fabrication and source conflation.
Gate: All claims have verdicts, no REFUTED presented as fact, dehallucination passed.
Phase 4: Synthesize
| Research Type | Structure |
|---|---|
| Comparison | Side-by-side matrix, winner per criterion, trade-offs |
| Procedural | Step-by-step guide, prerequisites, decision points |
| Exploratory | Landscape overview, taxonomy, key players, trends |
| Evaluative | Criteria, scoring, recommendation with caveats |
Assembly: reorder to reader-logical order, apply confidence tags inline, build bibliography, insert FLAGGED conflicts with both positions.
Completeness check against research-brief.success_criteria. If gaps: dispatch targeted Phase 2 (max 1 loop) or acknowledge gaps.
Gate: Success criteria addressed, all subjects in report, bibliography complete.
Circuit Breakers
| Trigger | Action |
|---|---|
| Phase 0 fails | STOP. Cannot proceed without scope. |
| All threads plateau L3 | Report partial findings as incomplete. |
| >50% claims REFUTED | Restart Phase 1 with revised plan. |
| >30% gaps at Phase 4 | Loop to Phase 2 (max 1 loop). |