# Research

> This skill should be used when researching best practices, evaluating technologies, comparing approaches, or when research, evaluation, or comparison are mentioned.

- Skill: `outfitter-dev/research-2` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add outfitter-dev/research-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/outfitter-dev/research-2/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: outfitter-dev (https://skillmd.com/u/outfitter-dev)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/outfitter-dev/research-2

---


# Research

Systematic investigation → evidence-based analysis → authoritative recommendations.

## Steps

1. Define scope and evaluation criteria
2. Discover sources using MCP tools (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
3. Gather information with multi-source approach
4. Load the `report-findings` skill for synthesis
5. Compile report with confidence levels and citations

<when_to_use>

- Technology evaluation and comparison
- Documentation discovery and troubleshooting
- Best practices and industry standards research
- Implementation guidance with authoritative sources

NOT for: quick lookups, well-known patterns, time-critical debugging without investigation stage

</when_to_use>

<stages>

Load the `maintain-tasks` skill for stage tracking. Stages advance only, never regress.

| Stage               | Trigger              | activeForm                   |
| ------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------------- |
| Analyze Request     | Session start        | "Analyzing research request" |
| Discover Sources    | Criteria defined     | "Discovering sources"        |
| Gather Information  | Sources identified   | "Gathering information"      |
| Synthesize Findings | Information gathered | "Synthesizing findings"      |
| Compile Report      | Synthesis complete   | "Compiling report"           |

Workflow:

- Start: Create "Analyze Request" as `in_progress`
- Transition: Mark current `completed`, add next `in_progress`
- Simple queries: Skip directly to "Gather Information" if unambiguous
- Gaps during synthesis: Add new "Gather Information" task
- Early termination: Skip to "Compile Report" with caveats

</stages>

<methodology>

Five-stage systematic approach:

**1. Question Stage** — Define scope

- Decision to be made?
- Evaluation parameters? (performance, maintainability, security, adoption)
- Constraints? (timeline, expertise, infrastructure)

**2. Discovery Stage** — Multi-source retrieval

| Use Case        | Primary         | Secondary           | Tertiary          |
| --------------- | --------------- | ------------------- | ----------------- |
| Official docs   | context7        | octocode            | firecrawl         |
| Troubleshooting | octocode issues | firecrawl community | context7 guides   |
| Code examples   | octocode repos  | firecrawl tutorials | context7 examples |
| Technology eval | Parallel all    | Cross-reference     | Validate          |

**3. Evaluation Stage** — Analyze against criteria

| Criterion       | Metrics                                           |
| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------- |
| Performance     | Benchmarks, latency, throughput, memory           |
| Maintainability | Code complexity, docs quality, community activity |
| Security        | CVEs, audits, compliance                          |
| Adoption        | Downloads, production usage, industry patterns    |

**4. Comparison Stage** — Systematic tradeoff analysis

For each option: Strengths → Weaknesses → Best fit → Deal breakers

**5. Recommendation Stage** — Clear guidance with rationale

Primary recommendation → Alternatives → Implementation steps → Limitations

</methodology>

<tools>

Three MCP servers for multi-source research:

| Tool          | Best For                | Key Functions                                             |
| ------------- | ----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| **context7**  | Official docs, API refs | `resolve-library-id`, `get-library-docs`                  |
| **octocode**  | Code examples, issues   | `packageSearch`, `githubSearchCode`, `githubSearchIssues` |
| **firecrawl** | Tutorials, benchmarks   | `search`, `scrape`, `map`                                 |

Execution patterns:

- **Parallel**: Run independent queries simultaneously for speed
- **Fallback**: context7 → octocode → firecrawl if primary fails
- **Progressive**: Start broad, narrow based on findings

See [tool-selection.md](references/tool-selection.md) for detailed usage.

</tools>

<discovery_patterns>

Common research workflows:

| Scenario                  | Approach                                                                     |
| ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Library Installation**  | Package search → Official docs → Installation guide                          |
| **Error Resolution**      | Parse error → Search issues → Official troubleshooting → Community solutions |
| **API Exploration**       | Documentation ID → API reference → Real usage examples                       |
| **Technology Comparison** | Parallel all sources → Cross-reference → Build matrix → Recommend            |

See [discovery-patterns.md](references/discovery-patterns.md) for detailed workflows.

</discovery_patterns>

<findings_format>

Two output modes:

**Evaluation Mode** (recommendations):

```
Finding: { assertion }
Source: { authoritative source with link }
Confidence: High/Medium/Low — { rationale }
```

**Discovery Mode** (gathering):

```
Found: { what was discovered }
Source: { where from with link }
Notes: { context or caveats }
```

</findings_format>

<response_structure>

```markdown
## Research Summary

Brief overview — what investigated, sources consulted.

## Options Discovered

1. **Option A** — description
2. **Option B** — description

## Comparison Matrix

| Criterion | Option A | Option B |
| --------- | -------- | -------- |

## Recommendation

### Primary: [Option Name]

**Rationale**: reasoning + evidence
**Confidence**: level + explanation

### Alternatives

When to choose differently.

## Implementation Guidance

Next steps, common pitfalls, validation.

## Sources

- Official, benchmarks, case studies, community
```

</response_structure>

<quality>

**Always include**:

- Direct citations with links
- Confidence levels and limitations
- Context about when recommendations may not apply

**Always validate**:

- Version is latest stable
- Documentation matches user context
- Critical info cross-referenced
- Code examples complete and runnable

**Proactively flag**:

- Deprecated approaches with modern alternatives
- Missing prerequisites
- Common pitfalls and gotchas
- Related tools in ecosystem

</quality>

<rules>

ALWAYS:

- Create "Analyze Request" todo at session start
- One stage `in_progress` at a time
- Use multi-source approach (context7, octocode, firecrawl)
- Provide direct citations with links
- Cross-reference critical information
- Include confidence levels and limitations

NEVER:

- Skip "Analyze Request" stage without defining scope
- Single-source when multi-source available
- Deliver recommendations without citations
- Include deprecated approaches without flagging
- Omit limitations and edge cases

</rules>

<references>

- [source-hierarchy.md](references/source-hierarchy.md) — authority evaluation details
- [tool-selection.md](references/tool-selection.md) — MCP server decision matrix
- [discovery-patterns.md](references/discovery-patterns.md) — detailed research workflows

**Research vs Report-Findings**:

- This skill (`research`) covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
- `report-findings` skill covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation

Use `research` for technology evaluation, documentation discovery, and best practices research. Load `report-findings` during synthesis stage for source authority assessment and confidence calibration.

</references>