stefancgillberg Research
Purpose
Conduct epistemologically rigorous research to inform decisions. Standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing wheels.
Mastery Levels (ShuHaRi)
- Shu: Follow all steps with full evidence catalog and research prompt template
- Ha: Scale depth to decision importance; adapt prompt template
- Ri: Create domain-specific research protocols and custom prompts
Context
When to use: Before ADRs, when evaluating competing approaches, entering unfamiliar domains, or resolving parking lot items.
When to skip: Decision is low-stakes and reversible, or prior research exists in work/research/.
Inputs: Clear research question(s), decision context, depth constraint (quick/standard/deep).
| Depth | Time | Sources | Use when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quick scan | 1-2h | 5-10 | Low-stakes, familiar domains |
| Standard | 4-8h | 15-30 | Most ADRs, technology evaluation |
| Deep dive | 2-5d | 50-100+ | Strategic decisions, unfamiliar domains |
Steps
Step 1: Frame the Question
Define: primary question, secondary questions, decision this informs, depth constraint.
Epistemological principles: Seek disconfirming evidence (falsifiability), require 3+ sources per claim (triangulation), primary > secondary > tertiary sources.
Step 2: Select Tool & Survey
Tool selection:
| Tool | Best for |
|---|---|
ddgr "query" |
Quick scans, no API key needed |
llm -m perplexity "query" |
Deep research with citations |
| WebSearch | Reliable fallback |
Gather sources: academic papers, official docs, GitHub repos (stars/activity), engineering blogs, community discussions.
Step 3: Build Evidence Catalog
Per source: type (primary/secondary/tertiary), evidence level, key finding, relevance.
| Evidence level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Very High | Peer-reviewed, production-proven at scale, >10k stars |
| High | Expert practitioners at established companies, >1k stars |
| Medium | Community-validated, emerging consensus, >100 stars |
| Low | Single source, unvalidated, <100 stars |
Save to work/research/{topic}/sources/evidence-catalog.md.
Step 4: Triangulate & Synthesize
Per major claim: find 3+ independent confirmations, note consensus vs disagreement, assign confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), acknowledge contrary evidence explicitly.
Extract patterns: convergence points, gaps, RaiSE-specific vs general findings.
Step 5: Recommend & Link
Produce: recommendation with confidence level, trade-offs, implementation implications, risks.
Connect to governance: create/reference ADR if architectural, update backlog if actionable, update parking lot if deferred.
Output
| Item | Destination |
|---|---|
| Report | work/research/{topic}/{topic}-report.md |
| Evidence catalog | work/research/{topic}/sources/evidence-catalog.md |
| Navigation | work/research/{topic}/README.md |
| Next | ADR, backlog item, or parking lot update |
Quality Checklist
- Research question is specific and falsifiable
- 10+ sources consulted (scaled to depth)
- Evidence catalog created with levels rated
- Major claims triangulated (3+ independent sources)
- Confidence level explicitly stated on recommendation
- Contrary evidence acknowledged (not hidden)
- Governance linkage established (ADR, backlog, or parking lot)
- NEVER present single-source findings as consensus
References
- Research prompt template:
references/research-prompt-template.md - Existing research:
work/research/ - Epistemology: falsifiability, triangulation, source hierarchy