# Research Decision > Build and set up a research-and-decision project — a structured investigation that compares candidates against criteria to reach a sourced, logged recommendation. This is a project-kit sub-skill loaded by new-project routing. Use WHENEVER the user wants to research a question, weigh options, compare alternatives, build a decision matrix, or decide between candidates (which X to choose) by a deadline. - Skill: `skryx-l-a/research-decision` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add skryx-l-a/research-decision` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/skryx-l-a/research-decision/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: Skryx-L-A (https://skillmd.com/u/skryx-l-a) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/skryx-l-a/research-decision --- # research-decision — sourced research that ends in a logged decision This sub-skill stands up a **research / decision** project: a question, a set of candidates, a set of criteria, and a deadline — driven to a cited, defensible recommendation. It mirrors a prior research/decision project: a small fixed doc system, a `berichte/` (reports) folder, a decision matrix scoring finalists on criteria, a portfolio of evidence, and the decision deliberately deferred to a date. Honesty is the whole product: every claim is sourced and marked verified vs. reasoned. --- ## What this sub-skill is for Answering a real decision with evidence: "which university / broker / framework / car / vendor / strategy", a feasibility study, a buy/build/skip call, a thorough literature scan. The output is a **recommendation + scored matrix + a logged decision**, not code. Composes with `content-writing` when the result is a long report, and with `build-business` when the decision is a business one. ## Mandatory grill-questions (fold into the Definition of Ready) Lock these before any research starts: - **The decision / question** — one precise sentence: what is being decided, for whom, and why now. - **Candidates** — the concrete options under comparison (and how open the field is — fixed shortlist vs. "find the candidates too"). - **Criteria & weights** — the dimensions that matter and their relative importance (cost, fit, risk, freedom, deadline pressure…). These become the matrix columns. **Recommend deriving weights explicitly with the user, not assuming them.** - **Deadline(s)** — the real decision date and any per-candidate deadlines (e.g. application windows). Finalists often each have different cut-offs — capture every one. - **What "decided" looks like** — the artifact + action that closes this: a logged choice, an application sent, a "defer until September" gate. Define the done state. - **Evidence bar** — how strong must sources be (peer-reviewed / official / practitioner-ok)? What needs primary sources vs. acceptable reasoning? - **Reversibility & stakes** — one-way vs. two-way door; what's the cost of being wrong. Drives how hard to grill and whether to convene `council`. - **Scope in/out** — which candidates/criteria are explicitly excluded, to bound the research. ## Project sub-agents to generate (into `/.claude/agents/`) - **`source-finder`** *(delegate-by-default)* — fans out across the web/literature to gather primary and high-quality sources per candidate/criterion; returns cited findings with URLs, never unsourced claims. Chains the `deep-research` skill. - **`claim-verifier`** *(delegate-by-default)* — adversarially checks each load-bearing claim, marks it **verified (with source)** vs. **reasoning/inference**, flags contradictions and stale data, and downgrades anything it can't substantiate. - **`decision-matrix-builder`** — maintains the criteria × candidates matrix, scores cells from the verified evidence, applies the weights, and surfaces the ranking + sensitivity (what flips it). - Plus the kit defaults: `reviewer` (audits the report for unsourced or overconfident claims) and `verifier` (re-checks that conclusions actually follow from the logged evidence). ## Tools / CLIs / MCP / skills needed Check in environment-readiness; offer install, never auto-install: - **Research MCPs/tools** — `WebSearch`/`WebFetch`; domain MCPs when relevant (PubMed, Consensus, Scholar Gateway, Clinical Trials for medical/academic; Semrush for market questions). - **Document tooling** — `xlsx` for the scoring matrix as a real spreadsheet; `pdf`/`docx` to export the final report; `pptx` if a decision briefing deck is wanted. - **`document-design` + `docrender` (2026-07-29 addition)** — the final recommendation report is exactly the "Entscheidungsvorlage" genre this skill is built for: its own layout (never a filled-in template), typeset in Typst, every page rendered to an image and checked with `docrender review ` before it's called done. Use it in place of a plain `pdf` export whenever the report is the actual deliverable someone reads and decides from, not an internal note. - **CHAIN these GLOBAL skills (the core of this type):** - `deep-research` — multi-source, fact-checked, cited research per candidate/criterion. - `council` — convene the four-voice decision council on the real tradeoff before recommending, especially for one-way-door, high-stakes calls. - `doc-coauthoring` — structure the final recommendation/report. - `verify` — sanity-check that the recommendation follows from the matrix. ## File / asset nudges (on top of the base set) Beyond CLAUDE.md, PROJEKT_.md, TASKS.md, DONE.md, README, `.claude/` — mirror a small fixed 4-file + reports layout: - `berichte/` (reports) — one cited write-up per candidate (and per major criterion), each marking verified vs. reasoned claims, with a sources list. - `decision-matrix.md` (+ a `decision-matrix.xlsx`) — criteria × candidates, weights, scores, and the resulting ranking + sensitivity notes. - `candidates/` — a profile per option (facts, deadlines, pros/cons, open questions). - `DECISION_LOG.md` — the running record: options considered, the chosen one (or the "defer to " gate), the reasoning, and what would change the call later. - `sources.md` — the bibliography/URL list backing every claim. ## Stack defaults & done-bar **Defaults:** a small fixed Markdown doc system + a `berichte/` folder + a weighted decision matrix (as both `.md` and `.xlsx`) + a `DECISION_LOG.md`; `deep-research` for gathering, `council` for the call, sources cited inline throughout. Defer the decision to the real deadline rather than forcing it early when the field is genuinely open. **Done-bar (all true):** every criterion is scored for every candidate from **verified, cited** evidence; a clear recommendation (or an explicit "decide on " gate) is written with its reasoning; the decision is recorded in `DECISION_LOG.md`; per-candidate deadlines are captured and none has silently lapsed; the report distinguishes verified facts from reasoning throughout. ## Guardrails - **Cite or flag — never assert unsourced.** Every load-bearing claim carries a source or is marked explicitly as reasoning/inference. No fabricated statistics, quotes, or citations, ever. - **Verified vs. reasoned is a visible distinction** in every report — the reader must always know which is which. - **Don't fake confidence or completeness** — surface gaps, contradictions, and stale data; say "I could not verify X" rather than smoothing it over. - **Honour every deadline** — track per-candidate cut-offs; never let a window lapse unflagged. - **Separate evidence from recommendation** — score on the evidence first, then recommend; convene `council` for high-stakes one-way-door calls instead of deciding solo. - **No emojis in any deliverable UI/output** (user's standing rule). - **Commits under the user's own name only (Skryx-L-A); never add Claude as a co-author.**