Standard Mode: Enhanced Research Pipeline
Contents
- Phase 0: CLASSIFY
- Phase 0.5: DISCOVERY
- Phase 1: SCOPE
- Phase 1.5: HYPOTHESIZE
- Phase 2: PLAN
- Phase 2.5: PLAN PREVIEW
- Phase 3: RETRIEVE
- Phase 3.5: GAP ANALYSIS
- Phase 4: TRIANGULATE
- Phase 5: SYNTHESIZE
- Phase 6: RED TEAM
- Phase 6.5: SELF-CRITIQUE
- Phase 7: PACKAGE
- Quality Checklist
Phase 0: CLASSIFY
Objective: Route questions to appropriate process intensity
| Type | Characteristics | Process |
|---|---|---|
| A: LOOKUP | Single fact, known source | WebSearch → Answer. 1-2 min. |
| B: SYNTHESIS | Multi-fact aggregation | 3 phases. 10 min. |
| C: ANALYSIS | Judgment needed | 6 phases. 20-30 min. |
| D: INVESTIGATION | Novel/conflicting | Full pipeline + Red Team. 45-60 min. |
Gate: Classification explicit before proceeding.
Phase 0.5: LANDSCAPE SCAN
Objective: Map the full landscape BEFORE diving into specifics. Discover what exists.
Rationale: You cannot research what you don't know exists. Claude's training data has a cutoff. For fast-changing fields (AI, crypto, tech), new entities exist that Claude doesn't know about. Scanning the landscape FIRST prevents blind spots.
CRITICAL RULE: No Known Names in Scan Queries
❌ WRONG: "DeepSeek Qwen performance comparison 2025"
→ You're only searching things you already know!
✅ RIGHT: "China open source LLM models list 2025"
→ You're discovering what's out there
When to Apply
ALL research types — MANDATORY before SCOPE:
| Type | Scan Intensity |
|---|---|
| A (Lookup) | 1 landscape search |
| B (Synthesis) | 2 landscape searches |
| C (Analysis) | 2-3 landscape searches |
| D (Investigation) | 3-4 landscape searches + full entity extraction |
Process
Landscape Search (parallel, NO known entity names, use current year):
WebSearch: "[topic] landscape overview [current year]" WebSearch: "top [topic] list [current year]" WebSearch: "[topic] ecosystem all players [current year]" WebSearch: "complete list [topic] [current year]"Extract ALL Entities from Results:
**Discovered (NOT in my training data):** - [Entity 1]: Brief description from search - [Entity 2]: Brief description from search **Confirmed (matches my knowledge but updated):** - [Entity A]: What's new - [Entity B]: Still relevantBuild Complete Picture:
- Count total entities found
- Note which are new vs known
- Use discovered names in SCOPE and PLAN queries
- Flag unknown entities for deeper investigation
Example
Topic: "Chinese open-source AI models"
Landscape Scan Queries (CORRECT):
"China open source AI models complete list 2025"
"Chinese AI ecosystem all players 2025"
"top Chinese LLM image video models 2025"
NOT This (WRONG - uses known names):
"DeepSeek vs Qwen comparison 2025" ← Skip this until AFTER scan!
After Landscape Scan:
Discovered: Wan 2.1, Kolors 2.1, MiniCPM4, Qwen3,
DeepSeek-V3.2, HunyuanVideo-I2V, Step-2, Emu3
Confirmed: DeepSeek, Qwen, Yi, Baichuan, GLM
→ NOW you have complete picture for SCOPE
Anti-Patterns
| Wrong | Right |
|---|---|
| Use known entity names in scan queries | Search for "list", "all", "ecosystem" |
| Skip scan, assume knowledge is current | Always scan landscape first |
| Search for specific comparisons first | Map the territory before drilling down |
| Ignore unfamiliar names in results | Extract and list every entity |
Gate: Complete entity list extracted; landscape mapped before SCOPE.
Phase 1: SCOPE
Objective: Define research boundaries and success criteria
| Input | Description |
|---|---|
| Core question | One-sentence research question |
| Decision/use-case | What will this inform? |
| Audience | Executive / Technical / Mixed |
| Scope | Geography, timeframe, in/out of scope |
| Constraints | Banned sources, required sources |
| Definition of Done | Measurable completion criteria |
THINK Step: Take Stock (T)
Before searching, clarify prior knowledge. See researcher-thinking.md.
- What I know with confidence: [List]
- What I think I know (needs verification): [List]
- What I know I don't know: [List]
Gate: Scope + definition of done explicit.
Phase 1.5: HYPOTHESIZE
Objective: Transform research into hypothesis testing
- Generate 3-5 testable hypotheses
- Assign prior probability: High (70-90%) / Medium (40-70%) / Low (10-40%)
- Design research to CONFIRM or DISCONFIRM each
- Track probability shifts as evidence accumulates
Requirements:
- At least 3 hypotheses before Phase 2
- Include at least one contrarian hypothesis
- Track probability shifts in final report
Gate: 3+ hypotheses generated.
Phase 2: PLAN
Objective: Create intelligent research roadmap
- Identify 5-10 primary sources
- List 5-10 secondary/backup sources
- Create 15-25 search query variations using QUEST Matrix
- Plan triangulation approach
QUEST Matrix: Systematic Query Generation
Use query-framework.md for comprehensive query coverage.
| Dimension | Purpose | Min Queries |
|---|---|---|
| Q - Questions (5W1H) | Ensure completeness | 4-6 |
| U - Universes (Stakeholders) | Multi-viewpoint | 3-4 |
| E - Expansions (Synonyms) | Semantic breadth | 2-3 |
| S - Scopes (Geo/Time/Scale) | Boundary exploration | 2-3 |
| T - Types (Source types) | Source diversity | 3-4 |
THINK Step: Hunt Direction (H)
Decompose the core question into prioritized sub-questions:
- Factual questions (What is?): [List with priority]
- Causal questions (Why?): [List with priority]
- Evaluative questions (How good?): [List with priority]
- Dependencies: [Which questions must come first?]
Gate: Each subquestion has 3+ queries and 2+ source classes. QUEST checklist ≥80% complete.
Phase 2.5: PLAN PREVIEW
Objective: User validation before executing (Deep+ tier only)
Present plan and ask: "ต้องการปรับแผนก่อนเริ่มไหมคะ?"
| User Response | Action |
|---|---|
| "proceed" / "ไปเลย" | Execute as planned |
| Adds/removes subquestion | Adjust plan |
| No response (30s) | Proceed with original |
Gate: User confirms OR timeout.
Phase 3: RETRIEVE
Objective: Collect information using PARALLEL execution
Parallel Execution (MANDATORY)
[Single message with multiple tool calls]
WebSearch: "[topic] 2025 state of the art"
WebSearch: "[topic] limitations challenges"
WebSearch: "[topic] vs alternatives comparison"
Task(agent): Academic paper analysis
Backtrack Protocol
When: 3+ consecutive searches yield <10% new info
1. STOP current path
2. LOG: "⚠️ Dead-end: [query] → [reason]"
3. PIVOT: Alternative angle/terminology
4. RESUME with new queries
URL Fetching
Primary: WebFetch tool
Fallback (if 403/blocked): Jina AI Reader
curl -s --max-time 60 "https://r.jina.ai/https://example.com/page"
Gate: Each subquestion has ≥3 sources and ≥1 high-quality.
Phase 3.5: GAP ANALYSIS
Objective: Identify gaps, generate refined queries
After initial retrieval, assess:
- ✅ Questions answered
- ⚠️ Questions partially answered
- ❌ Questions unanswered
- Claims needing more evidence
COMPASS Checklist: Perspective Coverage Audit
Use perspective-checklist.md to verify comprehensive coverage.
| Category | Check | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C - Contrast | Pro/Con, Benefits/Risks | [ ] |
| O - Outlook | Past/Present/Future | [ ] |
| M - Modes | Theory vs Practice | [ ] |
| P - Perspectives | Mainstream vs Alternative | [ ] |
| A - Arena | Local vs Global | [ ] |
| S - Scale | Individual/Org/Systemic | [ ] |
| S - Sources | Primary/Secondary/Diverse | [ ] |
Min Coverage: Quick 3/7, Standard 4/7, Deep 5/7, Exhaustive 6/7
THINK Step: Inspect Gaps (I)
Reflect on what's still missing:
- Information gathered so far: [Summary]
- Contradictions found: [List with resolution approach]
- Most concerning gap: [What + Why it matters + How to address]
- Follow-up queries: [Specific queries to fill gaps]
Iteration Rules:
- Quick tier: 0-1 iterations
- Standard: 1-2 iterations
- Deep: 2-3 iterations
- Exhaustive: Until diminishing returns
Gate: Gap analysis + COMPASS audit completed; follow-up queries executed.
Phase 4: TRIANGULATE
Objective: Validate information, assign claim types
Claim Taxonomy
| Type | Requirements |
|---|---|
| C1 Critical | Quote + 2+ independent sources + confidence + reasoning |
| C2 Supporting | Citation required |
| C3 Context | Cite if contested |
Confidence Reasoning (Required for C1)
**Claim:** [Statement]
**Confidence:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/SPECULATIVE
**Reason:** [Why this level]
**What would raise/lower:** [Evidence needed]
**Sources:** [1][2][3]
Confidence Levels
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| HIGH (90%+) | 3+ sources agree, large samples, replicated |
| MEDIUM (60-90%) | Single strong OR multiple weaker |
| LOW (30-60%) | Preliminary, expert opinion |
| SPECULATIVE (<30%) | Single weak, theoretical |
Gate: All C1 claims verified or marked unverified.
Phase 5: SYNTHESIZE
Objective: Generate insights with Implications Engine
For every major finding, answer:
| Question | Purpose |
|---|---|
| SO WHAT? | Why does this matter? |
| NOW WHAT? | What action to take? |
| WHAT IF? | If trend continues/reverses? |
Output format:
**ผลกระทบ (Implications):**
- **แล้วยังไง:** [Significance]
- **แล้วต้องทำอะไร:** [Action]
- **ถ้าเป็นอย่างนี้ต่อ:** [Scenario]
THINK Step: Notice Assumptions (N)
Before drawing conclusions, surface hidden assumptions. See researcher-thinking.md.
- My hidden assumptions: [List with "if wrong" impact]
- Source assumptions: [What my sources assume]
- Missing perspectives: [Whose voice is absent?]
| Assumption | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Risk if Wrong |
|---|---|---|---|
| [A1] | |||
| [A2] |
Gate: Every recommendation links to C1/C2 claims. Assumptions surfaced.
Phase 6: RED TEAM
Objective: Find counter-evidence (Devil's Advocate)
Deploy when: Type D investigation OR user requests
Search for:
- Data contradicting main findings
- Case studies where approach FAILED
- Expert opinions that DISAGREE
- Methodological weaknesses
- Edge cases where conclusions don't hold
Requirements:
- Present counterarguments at their STRONGEST
- Include "What would change our mind" triggers
- Section title: "ข้อจำกัดและหลักฐานที่ขัดแย้ง"
THINK Step: Know Limits (K)
Practice epistemic humility. See researcher-thinking.md.
- What I could be wrong about: [Top 3 claims + why might be wrong]
- Evidence that would change my mind: [For each conclusion]
- Honest confidence: Overall [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
- Most certain: [Claim]
- Least certain: [Claim]
Limitations Statement (for final report): "This analysis has the following limitations: [List 2-3 key limitations and their impact]"
Phase 6.5: SELF-CRITIQUE
Objective: Review quality before packaging
Checklist
- Every C1 has citation + confidence
- Quotes are verbatim
- Evidence supports conclusions
- HIGH claims have 3+ sources
- All hypotheses have outcomes
- Red Team section present
Common Issues
| Issue | Fix |
|---|---|
| Overclaiming | Add qualifiers, lower confidence |
| Missing nuance | Add "however" or "in some cases" |
| Stale citation | Flag or find newer source |
| Vague recommendation | Make actionable with details |
Gate: High-priority issues resolved.
Phase 7: PACKAGE
Objective: Deliver professional research report
Progressive Assembly
- Executive Summary → Write
- Hypothesis Results → Append
- Introduction → Append
- Findings (each with implications) → Append
- Red Team / Limitations → Append
- Recommendations → Append
- Bibliography (ALL entries) → Append
Anti-Truncation Rules
FORBIDDEN:
- "Content continues..."
- "Due to length..."
- Bibliography ranges "[8-75]"
REQUIRED:
- Complete each section fully
- Every citation [N] has full entry
Quality Checklist
Before delivery:
- Every C1 has citation + confidence + reasoning
- C1 claims have 2+ independent sources
- Contradictions acknowledged
- Sources recent (<3 months for AI/tech)
- No unsupported claims
- Implications for each finding
- Red Team section included
- Self-critique completed
- Gap analysis performed
- Hypothesis outcomes reported