Deep Research

Deep Research

Systematic research workflow: clarify → plan → parallel source analysis → thematic synthesis. Deliverables are files (plan.md, summaries/, synthesis.md), not a chat reply — research that lands somewhere reusable.

Phase 0: Topic

$ARGUMENTS is the topic. If empty, ask: "What topic or research question would you like to investigate?"

Phase 1: Clarification

Use AskUserQuestion to set parameters — but only ask what $ARGUMENTS and the conversation haven't already answered. A well-specified request ("a deep competitive scan of X across academic and practitioner sources, ~15 sources, saved to ./research") may answer all of these; in that case skip straight to Phase 2 and confirm your read-back in one line rather than running the dialog. Batch any genuinely open questions into a single AskUserQuestion call, including the save location (question 5):

1. Research purpose — what is the goal; which angles matter? Suggest options contextually. (multiSelect)
2. Scope boundaries — inclusions, exclusions, constraints? Suggest options contextually. (multiSelect)
3. Source preferences (multiSelect): academic / official documentation and whitepapers / expert blogs / practitioner discussions (Reddit, X, HN, LinkedIn) / company case studies
4. Depth (single select): Light 6–8 sources · Medium 9–14 · Deep 15+
5. Save location — where the research folder goes (default: ask, or use a knowledge base's research location if one is detected)

Phase 2: Plan & Approve

Brief preliminary scan: search for 2–3 representative sources; identify major themes, terminology, key authors; note unexpected angles worth folding in.

Create the plan from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/deep-research/templates/research-plan.md:

1. Create <working-directory>/<topic-slug>/ at the save location from Phase 1
2. Save the plan to <topic-slug>/plan.md with: 3–5 research angles, source strategy per the user's preferences, synthesis approach (thematic / comparative / chronological), expected deliverables, known challenges
3. Get the user's approval before executing — pivoting mid-research isn't supported, so the plan carries the weight

Knowledge-base check: only treat the location as a knowledge base if there's a positive signal it manages notes — a conventions.md describing note frontmatter/tags/links, or a CLAUDE.md with a "knowledge base"/notes-conventions section. A bare CLAUDE.md (the norm in code repos) is not a knowledge base — don't infer note conventions from it. When a real KB is detected, adopt its frontmatter, tag, and link conventions for every file this workflow writes, and use its research location if it names one.

Phase 3: Execute

Setup

1. Create <topic-slug>/synthesis.md from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/deep-research/templates/research-synthesis.md
2. Create <topic-slug>/summaries/

Queries → validated URLs

1. For each research angle, derive 2–4 specific search queries (total = target source count)
2. WebSearch each query; pick the strongest result
3. Validate every URL with a minimal WebFetch ("extract the title and first paragraph") before spawning any analyst. Treat as inaccessible: dead links, and paywalled pages — if the fetch returns only a teaser, an abstract, or a login/subscribe wall instead of the substance, the analyst will get the same, so don't send it. Replace with an alternate, but cap at ~2 alternates per query; if none are accessible, drop that query and note the gap rather than looping indefinitely.
4. Record which angle each validated URL serves, and which queries ended with no accessible source

Source quality bar — include only if: unique insight or data · authoritative voice · contrarian/edge perspective worth representing · primary research or original analysis.

Spawn analysts in parallel

One message, N subagent-spawn calls (the Agent tool, historically "Task") — all analysts run simultaneously:

subagent_type: "deep-research:research-analyst"
description: "Research <brief topic>"
prompt: "Source URL: <validated url>
Research focus: <angle from plan>
Research purpose: <goal from Phase 1>
Working directory: <working-directory>/<topic-slug>

Analyze this source per your instructions and save your summary to
<working-directory>/<topic-slug>/summaries/<descriptive-filename>.md,
then report your key insights."

Wait for all analysts to complete.

Reconcile before synthesizing

Don't trust the analysts' self-reported success. After they finish:

1. List summaries/ and match files against the set of URLs/angles you spawned
2. For any analyst that saved nothing (or to the wrong path), re-spawn it once
3. If it fails again, record the source as a permanent gap — name it in synthesis.md's limitations and in the Phase 4 report; don't silently shrink the research
4. Only proceed once every spawned source is either reconciled or recorded as a gap

Synthesize

1. Read every summary in summaries/
2. Organize by theme, not by source — each theme section integrates insights across sources
3. Per theme: core findings with citations to summary files · evidence and examples · consensus · contradictions and debates · practical implications · open questions
4. Conclusions proportional to evidence — claims need multiple sources; note confidence and source quality
5. Executive summary last: key findings across themes, limitations of the research

Cite summaries liberally — use the knowledge base's link style if one was detected, otherwise relative markdown links ([title](summaries/filename.md)), which resolve in any markdown viewer (a bare [[wikilink]] only resolves inside Obsidian-style tools).

Sources Consulted — end synthesis.md with a bibliography: every source as [title](original-url) with its publication date where known, grouped by research angle, plus the recorded gaps. This is the shareable citation trail; local summary links alone are useless to anyone you send the doc to.

Verify before finalizing

A structural synthesis isn't a verified one. Before delivering:

• Spot-check the highest-stakes claims (the ones a decision would rest on) against the original sources, not just the summaries — flag any the sources don't actually support
• Note where the evidence is thin or single-sourced rather than stating it with the same confidence as well-supported findings
• Run one gap pass: which planned angles ended up under-covered, and say so

Quality review

• Every research angle from plan.md is represented or its gap is noted (check against the plan, not just against the summaries that exist)
• Organized thematically, not source-by-source
• Findings cite source summaries; contradictions identified and explained
• Conclusions proportional to evidence strength; thin/single-source claims marked
• Sources Consulted bibliography present with working original URLs
• Internal links resolve; frontmatter complete (per KB conventions if detected)

Phase 4: Deliver

Report to the user:

• Where everything lives (plan.md, synthesis.md, summaries/)
• Major findings and themes, briefly
• Limitations: inaccessible sources, thin coverage, lower-quality evidence
• Anything unexpected or particularly significant

<working-directory>/<topic-slug>/
├── plan.md
├── synthesis.md
└── summaries/
    ├── <source-1>.md
    └── <source-2>.md