# Petekp Claude Code Setup Deep Research > Deep Research - Skill: `tomevault-io/petekp-claude-code-setup-deep-research` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/petekp-claude-code-setup-deep-research` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/petekp-claude-code-setup-deep-research/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/petekp-claude-code-setup-deep-research --- # Deep Research Systematic methodology for conducting exhaustive, accurate research using all available tools. Prioritizes correctness over speed. ## Core Principles 1. **Multiple sources required** — Never rely on a single source for important claims 2. **Cross-reference everything** — Verify facts appear consistently across independent sources 3. **Citation mandatory** — Every claim must have a source; no unsourced assertions 4. **Acknowledge uncertainty** — When sources conflict or are weak, say so explicitly 5. **Prefer primary sources** — Official docs > blog posts > forum answers > AI-generated content ## Available Research Tools Use these tools in combination based on the research topic: | Tool | Best For | Limitations | |------|----------|-------------| | **WebSearch** | Current events, recent information, broad topic discovery | Results may be outdated, SEO-influenced | | **WebFetch** | Reading specific URLs, extracting detailed content | Requires known URL | | **Playwright browser** | Interactive sites, paywalled content (if logged in), complex navigation | Slower, requires more tokens | | **Context7/MCP docs** | Library/framework documentation | Only indexed libraries | | **OpenAI docs MCP** | OpenAI API specifics | OpenAI only | | **Grep/Glob/Read** | Codebase research, finding implementations | Local files only | ## Research Workflow ### Phase 1: Scope Definition Before researching, clarify: 1. **Core question** — What specific question(s) need answering? 2. **Required depth** — Surface overview or exhaustive deep-dive? 3. **Recency requirements** — Is timeliness critical? (API versions, current events, etc.) 4. **Authoritative sources** — What would count as a definitive answer? Ask clarifying questions if scope is ambiguous. Use AskUserQuestion for structured choices when multiple research directions are possible. ### Phase 2: Source Discovery Cast a wide net to find relevant sources: ``` 1. WebSearch with multiple query variations - Try 3-5 different phrasings of the core question - Include technical terms AND plain language - Search for "[topic] official documentation" - Search for "[topic] research paper" or "[topic] study" 2. Identify authoritative sources from results - Official documentation sites - Academic papers / research institutions - Industry standards bodies - Recognized experts in the field 3. Check specialized tools - Context7 for library/framework docs - OpenAI docs MCP for OpenAI-specific topics - GitHub/codebase for implementation details ``` **Source discovery heuristics:** - Government and academic domains (.gov, .edu, .ac.uk) tend toward accuracy - Official project documentation is authoritative for that project - Wikipedia is a starting point, not an endpoint — follow its citations - Stack Overflow answers need verification; check votes and dates - Be skeptical of content farms and SEO-optimized listicles ### Phase 3: Deep Reading For each promising source: 1. **Fetch full content** — Use WebFetch or browser to get complete text 2. **Extract key claims** — Note specific facts, figures, dates, quotes 3. **Note source metadata** — Author, date, organization, potential biases 4. **Identify citations** — What sources does this source cite? 5. **Flag conflicts** — Does this contradict other sources? **Reading strategy for different source types:** | Source Type | Strategy | |-------------|----------| | Documentation | Read relevant sections fully; note version/date | | Research paper | Abstract, conclusion, methodology in that order | | News article | Check publication date, author credentials, cited sources | | Blog post | Verify claims independently; note author's expertise | | Forum/Q&A | Check answer date, votes, accepted status; verify independently | ### Phase 4: Cross-Verification For each major claim: 1. **Find 2+ independent sources** — Sources that don't cite each other 2. **Check for conflicts** — Note any disagreements between sources 3. **Prefer newer sources** — For rapidly evolving topics 4. **Weight by authority** — Primary sources > secondary > tertiary **Conflict resolution:** - When sources disagree, report all positions with citations - Investigate why they disagree (different contexts, outdated info, different definitions) - If one source is clearly more authoritative, note that - Never silently pick one version ### Phase 5: Synthesis & Output Structure findings clearly: ```markdown ## Research Summary: [Topic] ### Key Findings 1. **[Finding 1]** - [Specific fact with citation] - [Supporting evidence] - Confidence: High/Medium/Low - Sources: [1], [2] 2. **[Finding 2]** ... ### Conflicts & Uncertainties - [Area of disagreement]: Source A claims X [1], while Source B claims Y [2]. [Analysis of why they differ] ### Source Quality Assessment | # | Source | Type | Authority | Recency | Notes | |---|--------|------|-----------|---------|-------| | 1 | [URL] | Official docs | High | 2024-01 | Primary source | | 2 | [URL] | Research paper | High | 2023-06 | Peer-reviewed | | 3 | [URL] | Blog | Medium | 2024-03 | Author is [expert] | ### Gaps & Limitations - [What couldn't be verified] - [Areas needing more research] ### Citations [1] [Full citation with URL] [2] [Full citation with URL] ... ``` ## Confidence Levels Assign confidence to each finding: | Level | Criteria | |-------|----------| | **High** | 3+ independent authoritative sources agree; no conflicts | | **Medium** | 2 sources agree, or 1 highly authoritative source; minor conflicts | | **Low** | Single source, or significant conflicts between sources | | **Uncertain** | Sources conflict significantly; unable to determine truth | Always state confidence explicitly. "I'm not sure" is a valid research finding. ## Citation Format Use inline citations with numbered references: ```markdown The API rate limit is 60 requests per minute [1], though this can be increased for enterprise accounts [2]. --- [1] OpenAI API Documentation, "Rate Limits", https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/rate-limits, accessed 2024-01-15 [2] OpenAI Enterprise FAQ, https://openai.com/enterprise, accessed 2024-01-15 ``` **Citation must include:** - Source name/title - URL (if web source) - Access date (for web sources) - Publication date (if available) ## Special Research Scenarios ### Rapidly Evolving Topics (AI, crypto, etc.) - Prioritize sources from last 6 months - Check official changelogs and release notes - Note when information might be outdated - Consider using browser to check current state directly ### Controversial Topics - Present multiple perspectives with citations for each - Identify the strongest arguments on each side - Note which sources might have biases and why - Don't pick sides unless evidence is overwhelming ### Technical Implementation Questions - Check official documentation first (Context7, MCP servers) - Look for example code in GitHub - Verify against actual behavior if possible - Note version-specific differences ### Comparative Research ("X vs Y") - Use same evaluation criteria for all options - Find sources that compare directly when possible - Check for bias (vendor-sponsored comparisons) - Note what each option is optimized for ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid | Anti-Pattern | Why It's Bad | Instead | |--------------|--------------|---------| | Single source | No verification | Always find 2+ sources | | Uncited claims | Unverifiable | Every fact needs a source | | Assuming first result is best | SEO != accuracy | Evaluate source quality | | Ignoring conflicts | Hides uncertainty | Report all positions | | Outdated sources | Information decay | Check publication dates | | Trusting AI summaries | May hallucinate | Go to primary sources | | Stopping early | Incomplete picture | Research until diminishing returns | ## Completion Criteria Research is complete when: 1. Core question(s) answered with citations 2. Key claims verified by 2+ independent sources 3. Conflicts and uncertainties explicitly noted 4. Source quality assessed for all citations 5. Confidence levels assigned to findings 6. Gaps and limitations documented ## Reference Files For detailed guidance on specific scenarios: - [Source Evaluation Criteria](references/source-evaluation.md) — How to assess source reliability - [Search Strategies](references/search-strategies.md) — Advanced query techniques for different domains --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/petekp) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.