# Deep Research > Runs a thorough multi-source research process - decompose the question, gather independent sources, cross-check, synthesize - and delivers a structured, cited brief with confidence levels and gaps. Use when someone asks "research this topic in depth", "give me everything on X", "what does the evidence say about Y", or needs a broad question answered from secondary sources with citations. Do NOT use for designing a study that collects new data - use primary-research instead; for distilling an already-gathered pile of 20+ sources into themes, use research-synthesis; for verifying one discrete claim, use fact-checker. - Skill: `skillmedev/deep-research` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add skillmedev/deep-research` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/skillmedev/deep-research/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: SkillMedev (https://skillmd.com/u/skillmedev) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/skillmedev/deep-research --- # Deep Research Go wide, then deep: triangulate across independent sources and report what was actually found, including the gaps. The costly failure this skill prevents is the confident brief built on an echo - a dozen articles that all trace to one blog post or one press release, presented as consensus. "Not found" is a legitimate finding; a smooth answer papering over thin evidence is not. ## Inputs to collect 1. The research question, restated until the user confirms it. Ambiguity here multiplies through every later step. 2. What decision or output the research feeds. A brief informing a purchase differs from one informing a publication. 3. Scope boundaries: geography, industry, population, and what is explicitly out of scope. 4. Depth and deadline. Default: 3-6 sub-questions, at least two independent sources per sub-question. 5. Known sources or prior work to build on. Treat supplied sources as leads to appraise, not settled evidence. Label any assumed scope as an assumption. ## Operating procedure Order matters: sub-questions must exist before gathering, or the research becomes an unstructured pile shaped by whatever surfaced first. 1. **Frame.** Restate the question and define what a good answer looks like - the form (a number, a ranked list, a causal story) and the bar (how sure it needs to be). 2. **Map.** Decompose into 3-6 sub-questions and research each one, rather than the topic as a blob. If a sub-question splits again, it was two sub-questions. 3. **Gather.** Collect diverse, independent sources per sub-question; prefer primary sources - original data, papers, filings, direct statements - over summaries. Two sources that cite the same origin are one source. Record recency and potential bias for each as you go, not retroactively. 4. **Cross-check.** For each sub-question, mark where sources agree, disagree, or run thin. Disagreement is signal: hypothesize why (different definitions, populations, time periods, incentives) instead of averaging it away. 5. **Synthesize.** Answer the original question with the weight of evidence. Separate evidence from inference and label the inferences. Assign each finding a confidence level: High (multiple independent primary sources agree), Medium (mixed or secondary-heavy support), Low (single source or inference). 6. **Audit before delivery.** Re-check each citation is real and locatable, and that every High-confidence finding actually has the sourcing it claims. ## Worked example (findings-table format) Question: "Is four-day-workweek adoption growing among knowledge-work employers, and what happens to output?" ``` Sub-question Finding Confidence Sources Adoption trend Growing from a small base; most Medium Coordinated-trial reports (primary); employers remain on 5 days national labor-survey data (primary) Output effect Trials report maintained revenue and Trial-organization data (primary); lower attrition - but trial firms Medium independent academic follow-up self-selected, so effects may not generalize Who it fails for Thin evidence for client-facing and Low Single practitioner survey; rest is shift-based work anecdote - GAP: no controlled study found ``` Note the third row: the honest output is a labeled gap, not a stretched conclusion. ## Deliverable Produce a research brief containing: a summary answering the question in a few sentences up top; findings organized by sub-question, each with citations and a confidence tag; a confidence-and-gaps section stating what is well-supported, what is uncertain, and what is unknown; and a source list with enough detail to locate each item plus a one-line note on its independence and bias. ## Do NOT - Do not invent or embellish a citation - one fabricated source invalidates the entire brief. Never cite something not actually consulted. - Do not count correlated sources as corroboration; trace what each actually relies on before calling anything consensus. - Do not average disagreeing sources into a mushy middle. Present the disagreement and the best hypothesis for why it exists. - Do not let the gathering order set the narrative - the first three sources found are the most findable ones, not the most representative. - Do not blur evidence and inference. A reader must be able to tell which sentences report sources and which report reasoning. ## Quality bar Before shipping: every sub-question has at least two genuinely independent sources or an explicit gap note; every finding carries a confidence tag consistent with its sourcing; disagreements are surfaced with a hypothesis, not smoothed over; the summary is answerable-from and consistent with the findings; every citation is locatable from the detail given. ## Escalation Route adjacent jobs: designing a study to collect new data is primary-research; compressing an existing corpus of sources into themes and tensions is research-synthesis; a single checkable claim is fact-checker; academic-literature-specific reviews are literature-review or systematic-review. Findings that will drive legal, medical, or financial decisions need professional review before action.