# 696 Process And Comparison Methodology With References 7748bb92 > Provenance Report: “Methodology Comparison Template” Generation (2026-01-27) - Skill: `tools-only/696-process-and-comparison-methodology-with-references-7748b` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tools-only/696-process-and-comparison-methodology-with-references-7748b` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tools-only/696-process-and-comparison-methodology-with-references-7748b/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: tools-only (https://skillmd.com/u/tools-only) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tools-only/696-process-and-comparison-methodology-with-references-7748b --- # Provenance Report: “Methodology Comparison Template” Generation (2026-01-27) This document records the **actual process executed** to produce: - Output template file: `methodology_development/methodology_comparison_template.md` - Supporting research summary: delivered in-chat as “Stage 1: Research & Information Gathering” Goal: produce a reusable, universal comparison template grounded in **real-world comparison methodologies** (consumer, technical, business, academic), with an **AI-oriented pre-comparison reflection** and **bounded self-extension**. --- ## 1) Local repo context gathered (inputs read) To match this repository’s conventions and constraints, I read: - `sessions/CLAUDE.sessions.md` (cc-sessions workflow expectations; DAIC notes) - `methodology_development/README.md` (how SAM docs are organized) - `methodology_development/stateless-agent-methodology.md` (existing comparison style: matrices, stages, verification language) - `methodology_development/sam-vs-get-shit-done.md` (comparison document structure and tone) These reads informed the template’s emphasis on: - gating steps (reflection before action), - explicit failure modes / backpressure, - structured outputs and checklists. --- ## 2) Web research execution log (what I actually did) ### 2.1 Initial broad sampling (search) I ran broad web searches spanning: - consumer review methodologies (Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, RTINGS, PCMag, Good Housekeeping), - decision matrix frameworks (ASQ, Pugh), - business methodology comparisons (Agile vs Waterfall, Lean vs Six Sigma), - academic rubrics (AAC&U VALUE, NIH peer review), - technical framework comparisons (React/Vue, Vue official comparisons). Purpose: ensure the resulting domains weren’t biased toward software-only comparisons. ### 2.2 Primary-source retrieval (fetch) I attempted direct retrieval via standard page fetch for the candidate primary sources. Observed constraints: - Some Wirecutter/NYT pages were blocked to direct fetch (403), so direct fetch was insufficient. - Some RTINGS pages returned partial content with standard fetch (likely JS/content gating). ### 2.3 MCP tool selection decision (why Firecrawl MCP was used) You requested MCP tools + Chrome browser when scraping fails. I examined the available MCP servers in this workspace: - `cursor-ide-browser` and `cursor-browser-extension` are present as MCP servers, but **do not provide local tool schema JSON files** in `./mcps/.../tools/` for me to read. - This repo enforces “read schema first before calling MCP tools”; without tool schemas, I could not safely invoke those MCP tools via `CallMcpTool`. Therefore, for blocked/JS-heavy sources, I switched to **Firecrawl MCP**, which _does_ provide tool schema JSON descriptors locally and can be invoked compliantly. Tool schemas read (for compliance): - `mcps/user-firecrawl/tools/firecrawl_scrape.json` - `mcps/user-firecrawl/tools/firecrawl_search.json` - `mcps/user-firecrawl/tools/firecrawl_extract.json` - `mcps/user-firecrawl/tools/firecrawl_map.json` ### 2.4 MCP retrieval results (what succeeded / failed) Succeeded via Firecrawl scrape: - Wirecutter “Anatomy of a guide”: `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/anatomy-of-a-guide/` - Wirecutter “Comparison tables”: `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/comparison-tables/` - RTINGS “Test Benches and Scoring System”: `https://www.rtings.com/company/test-benches-and-scoring-system` - RTINGS “Scoring Function Overhaul”: `https://www.rtings.com/company/scoring-function-overhaul` Failed via Firecrawl (provider blocklist): - Wirecutter washer/dryer/detergent testing article: `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/testing-washers-dryers-and-detergents/` - Failure reason: Firecrawl reported the site/page as **blocklisted** (no content retrieved). - Mitigation: used other consumer-testing methodology sources (Consumer Reports, PCMag, Good Housekeeping) to cover the same “testing protocol + scoring” pattern without fabricating details. Notes: - Some attempted WebFetch requests were rejected due to the user choosing to skip those fetches (recorded in tool output at the time). Those sources were therefore **not used** as primary evidence. --- ## 3) Synthesis decisions (how research shaped the template) The final template structure in `methodology_development/methodology_comparison_template.md` was directly driven by recurring patterns observed in the retrieved sources: - **Structured scope framing** (“who it’s for”, “why trust us”) from Wirecutter. - **Comparison tables / weighted attributes** from Wirecutter. - **Category-dependent weighting + disqualifiers** (e.g., CR’s “cannot recommend if…”) from Consumer Reports. - **Comparability constraints** (only compare within same script/protocol) from PCMag. - **Weighted ratings as usage profiles** + explicit score interpretation bands from RTINGS. - **Criteria selection + weighting + baseline scoring** + “keep scales aligned” from ASQ decision matrix guidance. - **Context section separated from evaluation** and explicit rubric levels from Baldrige. - **Mixed scoring types** (numeric + sufficiency/binary) and “not all criteria must be strong” from NIH peer review framework. - **Bias acknowledgement** in stakeholder-authored comparisons from Vue’s comparison guide. I then encoded these into: - a mandatory **Pre-Comparison Reflection** gate, - essential vs optional domains, - bounded “domain-specific extension” with a hard cap, - explicit stopping criteria, - optional decision matrix with sensitivity check. --- ## 4) Outputs produced (filesystem provenance) - Created: `methodology_development/methodology_comparison_template.md` - Contents include: - pre-comparison reflection gate, - universal domain worksheets, - optional decision matrix + sensitivity check, - evidence log for traceability. - Created/updated: this file - `.claude/skills/research-and-compare/process-and-comparison-methodology-with-references.md` - This replaces a generic “how to do comparisons” spec with the concrete provenance record. --- ## 5) Reference set actually used (primary sources; access date 2026-01-27) Consumer testing / review methodology: 1. Wirecutter, “The Anatomy of a Wirecutter Guide”. `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/anatomy-of-a-guide/` (accessed 2026-01-27) 2. Wirecutter, “Wirecutter’s Secret to Making Great Picks: Obsessive Spreadsheeting”. `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/comparison-tables/` (accessed 2026-01-27) 3. Consumer Reports Data Intelligence, “Rating Methods”. `https://data.consumerreports.org/rating-methods/` (accessed 2026-01-27) 4. PCMag, “How We Test Everything We Review”. `https://www.pcmag.com/about/how-we-test-everything-we-review` (accessed 2026-01-27) 5. Good Housekeeping (UK), “How the Good Housekeeping Institute Approved seal really works”. `https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/consumer-advice/a563956/how-good-housekeeping-institute-approved-really-works/` (accessed 2026-01-27) 6. RTINGS, “Test Benches and Scoring System”. `https://www.rtings.com/company/test-benches-and-scoring-system` (accessed 2026-01-27) 7. RTINGS, “Scoring Function Overhaul”. `https://www.rtings.com/company/scoring-function-overhaul` (accessed 2026-01-27) Decision matrices / selection frameworks: 8. ASQ, “What is a Decision Matrix?”. `https://asq.org/quality-resources/decision-matrix` (accessed 2026-01-27) Business methodology comparisons / selection framing: 9. Atlassian, “Project management intro: Agile vs. waterfall methodologies”. `https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/project-management-intro` (accessed 2026-01-27) 10. Lucidchart, “Lean vs. Six Sigma: Determining the Right Method for Your Business”. `https://lucidchart.com/blog/lean-vs-six-sigma` (accessed 2026-01-27) Formal rubrics / peer review: 11. NIST Baldrige, “Award Criteria” (2025 edition page). `https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/baldrige-award/award-criteria` (accessed 2026-01-27) 12. NIH Grants, “Simplified Peer Review Framework”. `https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/framework` (accessed 2026-01-27) Technical framework self-comparison (bias-disclosure example): 13. Vue.js (Vue 2 docs), “Comparison with Other Frameworks”. `https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html` (accessed 2026-01-27) --- ## 6) Known gaps / blocked evidence - Wirecutter washer/dryer/detergent testing story was **not retrievable** via Firecrawl due to provider blocklisting: - `https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/testing-washers-dryers-and-detergents/` - Status: not used as evidence; replaced by other consumer-testing methodology sources listed above.