# TRIP-research > Exploratory research or spike - investigation without production code - Skill: `pilastdigit/trip-research` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add pilastdigit/trip-research` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pilastdigit/trip-research/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: pilastdigit (https://skillmd.com/u/pilastdigit) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pilastdigit/trip-research --- # Research Mode You are now in **research mode** - for exploratory investigations that don't directly produce production code. Use this for: - Technology evaluation - Feasibility studies - Architecture exploration - Performance investigation - Bug root cause analysis - Proof of concept ## Your Task Research: $ARGUMENTS --- ## Step 0: Read fully @docs/ARCHI.md ## Step 1: Define Scope ### 1.1 Clarify the Question > **"What specific question(s) are we trying to answer?"** Document the research question(s) clearly: - What do we need to find out? - What would a successful outcome look like? - What decisions will this research inform? ### 1.2 Compute Box > **"How much thinking effort does this research require?"** Based on the complexity of the question(s), suggest an appropriate thinking level: | Level | When to Use | Research Type | | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | **quick** | Simple lookup, straightforward answer | "What's the syntax for X?" | | **brief** | Minor analysis, single-source research | "How does library X handle Y?" | | **think** | Standard research, comparing options | "Which library should we use for X?" | | **think hard** | Complex analysis, architectural decisions | "How should we restructure module X?" | | **think harder** | Deep investigation, multiple tradeoffs | "What's the best approach for X given constraints A, B, C?" | | **ultrathink** | Critical decisions, extensive exploration | "Should we rewrite system X? What are all implications?" | **Use the `AskUserQuestion` tool** to confirm the thinking level: - **Question**: "Based on this research scope, I suggest using `[level]` thinking. Does that seem appropriate?" - **Options**: "Yes, use [level]" (proceed with suggested level), "Use a different level" (I want to adjust the thinking effort) Once confirmed, the agent should apply the corresponding thinking effort throughout the investigation. --- ## Step 2: Research Plan Create a lightweight research plan (not a full TRIP plan): ```markdown # Research: [Topic] ## Question(s) - [Primary question] - [Secondary questions if any] ## Approach 1. [First thing to investigate] 2. [Second thing to investigate] 3. [...] ## Success Criteria - [ ] [What we need to determine] - [ ] [What we need to determine] ## Compute Level [quick / brief / think / think hard / think harder / ultrathink] ``` --- ## Step 3: Confirm & Start Present the research plan summary to the user, then **use the `AskUserQuestion` tool** with two questions: **Question 1** (header: "Start"): - **Question**: "Research plan ready — Question: [primary question], Approach: [brief summary], Compute: [level]. Ready to start?" - **Options**: "Yes, start research" (proceed with investigation), "Adjust the plan" (I have changes to the research scope or approach) **Question 2** (header: "Output"): - **Question**: "How do you want the findings delivered?" - **Options**: "Chat only" (respond directly in the conversation), "Write a memo" (create a file in `docs/6-memo/`) **If "Adjust"**: Modify the plan based on user feedback, then re-present using `AskUserQuestion`. **If "Yes"**: Proceed with investigation. Remember the output preference for Step 5. --- ## Step 4: Investigation Conduct the research: ### For Technology Evaluation - Review documentation - Check community/ecosystem health - Look at alternatives - Consider maintenance burden - Assess learning curve ### For Feasibility Study - Identify constraints - Prototype critical parts (throwaway code OK) - Identify risks and unknowns - Estimate effort ### For Performance Investigation - Establish baseline metrics - Identify bottlenecks - Test hypotheses - Measure improvements ### For Bug Investigation - Reproduce the issue - Trace the root cause - Identify contributing factors - Consider similar vulnerabilities --- ## Step 4b: Codex Cross-Check For **decision-grade findings** — architecture recommendations, technology choices, anything the user will build on (typically compute level `think hard` and above) — red-team the draft conclusion with the `codex-ask` skill before presenting. Skip for quick lookups. ```bash bash .claude/skills/codex-ask/scripts/start.sh \ --prompt-file .claude/skills/codex-ask/prompts/ask.tpl \ "Here is my draft recommendation: . Red-team it: what am I missing, what would you choose instead, and why?" ``` Follow up in the same thread (`resume.sh` + `followup.tpl`) if the answer raises points worth probing. Then: - **Incorporate** legitimate points into the findings (adjust the recommendation or add caveats). - **Record real disagreements** in the memo's Open Questions section with both positions — the user decides. - This is advisory, not gating: you own the final recommendation. --- ## Step 5: Present Findings ### If "Chat only" was selected Present the findings directly in the conversation, structured as: 1. **Summary** (2-3 sentences) 2. **Key Findings** (numbered list) 3. **Recommendations** (what to do, rationale, alternatives) 4. **Open Questions** (if any) Then **use the `AskUserQuestion` tool**: - **Question**: "Research complete. What would you like to do next?" - **Options**: "Elaborate on findings" (dive deeper into specific results), "Save as memo" (write findings to `docs/6-memo/` after all), "Plan implementation" (create a TRIP plan based on these results), "Done" (no further action needed) If "Save as memo": write the memo using the template below, then confirm the file location. ### If "Write a memo" was selected Create findings document in `docs/6-memo/`: **File**: `docs/6-memo/research_[date]_[topic].md` ```markdown # Research: [Topic] **Date**: DD-MM-YYYY **Author**: [Name] ## Summary [2-3 sentence executive summary] ## Questions Investigated ### Q1: [Question] **Finding**: [Answer] **Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low] **Evidence**: [What supports this conclusion] ### Q2: [Question] [...] ## Key Findings 1. **[Finding 1]**: [Details] 2. **[Finding 2]**: [Details] 3. **[Finding 3]**: [Details] ## Recommendations - **Recommended**: [What we should do] - **Rationale**: [Why] - **Alternatives Considered**: [What else was evaluated] ## Open Questions - [Questions that remain unanswered] - [Areas needing further investigation] ## Next Steps - [ ] [Action item 1] - [ ] [Action item 2] ## Appendix (optional) ### Code Snippets / Prototypes [Any throwaway code created during research] ### References - [Links to documentation, articles, etc.] ``` Then **use the `AskUserQuestion` tool**: - **Question**: "Research documented at `docs/6-memo/research_[date]_[topic].md`. What would you like to do next?" - **Options**: "Elaborate on findings" (dive deeper into specific results), "Plan implementation" (create a TRIP plan based on these results), "Done" (no further action needed) --- ## What This Workflow Produces - Clear recommendations - Basis for future TRIP planning - Optionally: documented findings in `docs/6-memo/` ## What This Workflow Does NOT Produce - No production code - No version bump - No changelog entry - No commits to main --- ## Transition to Implementation If research concludes that implementation should proceed, **use the `AskUserQuestion` tool**: - **Question**: "Based on this research, would you like me to create a TRIP plan for implementation?" - **Options**: "Yes, create a plan" (use findings to inform `TRIP-1-plan`), "Not yet" (I'll decide later) If yes, use findings to inform `TRIP-1-plan`.