majiayu000 Iterative Research Review (Rule of 5)
Perform thorough research document review using the Rule of 5 - iterative refinement until convergence.
Setup
If research document path provided: Read the document completely
If no path: Ask for the research document path or list available research documents
Process
Perform 5 passes, each focusing on different aspects. After each pass (starting with pass 2), check for convergence.
PASS 1 - Accuracy & Sources
Focus on:
- Claims backed by evidence
- Source credibility and recency
- Correct interpretation of sources
- Factual accuracy of technical details
- Version/date relevance (is information outdated?)
- Code references are correct (file:line exist and match claim)
Output format:
PASS 1: Accuracy & Sources
Issues Found:
[ACC-001] [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - Section/Paragraph
Description: [What's inaccurate or unsourced]
Evidence: [Why this is problematic]
Recommendation: [How to fix with specific guidance]
[ACC-002] ...
What to look for:
- "This works by..." without code reference
- Claims about codebase without verification
- Outdated information (library versions, deprecated APIs)
- Misinterpretation of source code
- Assumptions presented as facts
PASS 2 - Completeness & Scope
Focus on:
- Missing important topics or considerations
- Unanswered questions that should be addressed
- Gaps in the analysis
- Scope creep (irrelevant tangents)
- Depth appropriate for the topic
- All research questions answered
Prefix: COMP-001, COMP-002, etc.
What to look for:
- Research question asked but not answered
- Obvious related topics not explored
- Shallow treatment of complex topics
- Too much detail on tangential topics
- "Further research needed" without followthrough
PASS 3 - Clarity & Structure
Focus on:
- Logical flow and organization
- Clear definitions of terms
- Appropriate headings and sections
- Readability for target audience
- Jargon explained or avoided
- Consistent terminology
Prefix: CLAR-001, CLAR-002, etc.
What to look for:
- Jumping between topics without transitions
- Technical terms used without definition
- Conclusions before supporting evidence
- Redundant sections
- Confusing or ambiguous language
PASS 4 - Actionability & Conclusions
Focus on:
- Clear takeaways and recommendations
- Conclusions supported by the research
- Practical applicability to the project
- Trade-offs clearly articulated
- Next steps identified
- Decision-making guidance provided
Prefix: ACT-001, ACT-002, etc.
What to look for:
- Research without recommendations
- Conclusions that don't follow from findings
- "Interesting but..." without actionable insight
- Missing implementation guidance
- No clear "what should we do?"
PASS 5 - Integration & Context
Focus on:
- Alignment with existing research
- Connections to specs and requirements
- Relevance to current project goals
- Contradictions with established decisions
- Impact on existing plans
- References to related work
Prefix: INT-001, INT-002, etc.
What to look for:
- Contradicts previous research without acknowledgment
- Ignores existing patterns in codebase
- Doesn't reference related specs or docs
- Recommendations conflict with project direction
- Missing cross-references
Convergence Check
After each pass (starting with pass 2), report:
Convergence Check After Pass [N]:
1. New CRITICAL issues: [count]
2. Total new issues this pass: [count]
3. Total new issues previous pass: [count]
4. Estimated false positive rate: [percentage]
Status: [CONVERGED | ITERATE | NEEDS_HUMAN]
Convergence criteria:
- CONVERGED: No new CRITICAL, <10% new issues vs previous pass, <20% false positives
- ITERATE: Continue to next pass
- NEEDS_HUMAN: Found blocking issues requiring human judgment
If CONVERGED before Pass 5: Stop and report final findings.
Final Report
After convergence or completing all passes:
## Research Review Final Report
**Research:** [path/to/research.md]
### Summary
Total Issues by Severity:
- CRITICAL: [count] - Must fix before using research
- HIGH: [count] - Should fix before using research
- MEDIUM: [count] - Consider addressing
- LOW: [count] - Nice to have
Convergence: Pass [N]
### Top 3 Most Critical Findings
1. [ACC-001] [Description] - Section [N]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
2. [COMP-003] [Description] - Section [N]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
3. [ACT-002] [Description] - Conclusions
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
### Recommended Revisions
1. [Action 1 - specific and actionable]
2. [Action 2 - specific and actionable]
3. [Action 3 - specific and actionable]
### Verdict
[READY | NEEDS_REVISION | NEEDS_MORE_RESEARCH]
**Rationale:** [1-2 sentences explaining the verdict]
### Research Quality Assessment
- **Accuracy**: [Excellent|Good|Fair|Poor] - [brief comment]
- **Completeness**: [Excellent|Good|Fair|Poor] - [brief comment]
- **Actionability**: [Excellent|Good|Fair|Poor] - [brief comment]
- **Clarity**: [Excellent|Good|Fair|Poor] - [brief comment]
Rules
- Be specific - Reference sections/paragraphs, provide file:line for code claims
- Verify claims - Actually check code references and factual statements
- Validate actionability - Research should drive decisions, not just inform
- Prioritize correctly:
- CRITICAL: Factually wrong or misleading
- HIGH: Significant gaps or unclear conclusions
- MEDIUM: Could be clearer or more complete
- LOW: Minor improvements
- If converged before pass 5 - Stop and report, don't continue needlessly