deep-research
Skill30 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Source-verified research: fact-check a claim, settle documents that contradict each other, compare options for a decision someone will challenge, or trace how code in a repository actually behaves — citing the exact page excerpt, file line or test that proves each point. Use when the answer will be questioned or being confidently wrong is costly — a board memo, design doc, audit, vendor contract, PR dispute — and for "is it true that…", "verify / fact-check this", "the docs disagree", "where does this number come from", "X vs Y with sources", "how does our retry logic work, cite files and lines", 核实 / 求证 / 查证 / 调研 / 文档互相矛盾. Use it even when the answer seems already known: recalled facts are what this checks. For a quick lookup that needs only a link or reusable search strings, use google-search instead.
196 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ridelink0/ultimate-frontend-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrisblattman/claudeblattmantheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- genericService/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ourostack/ouroboros-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mahsumaktas/agent-evolution-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- insight68/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use community-led-growth, ph-community-outreach and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
nicepkgSkillcommunity-led-growth
Expert in community-led growth (CLG) - leveraging user communities to drive acquisition, retention, and expansion. Covers building developer communities, user groups, ambassador programs, and turning customers into advocates. Knows the difference between community as a feature vs community as a growth engine, and how to measure community ROI. Use when "community-led, CLG, ambassador program, champion program, user community, developer community, word of mouth, user group, " mentioned.
Also in 5 projects that use this
nicepkgSkillph-community-outreach
Engage Reddit, Indie Hackers, Hacker News and other communities for Product Hunt launches. Use this skill to identify relevant communities, craft appropriate posts, and drive cross-platform engagement without appearing spammy.
Also in 5 projects that use this
W-MoorerSkillacademic-paper-reviewer
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.
Also in 11 projects that use this
W-MoorerSkillacademic-pipeline
Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.
Also in 10 projects that use this
xfstudioSkillmicro-saas-launcher
Expert in launching small, focused SaaS products fast - the indie hacker approach to building profitable software. Covers idea validation, MVP development, pricing, launch strategies, and growing to sustainable revenue. Ship in weeks, not months. Use when: micro saas, indie hacker, small saas, side project, saas mvp.
Also in 5 projects that use this
stophobiaSkillsurprise-me
Create a delightful, unexpected "wow" experience for the user by dynamically discovering and creatively combining other enabled skills. Triggers when the user says "surprise me" or any request expressing a desire for an unexpected creative showcase. Also triggers when the user is bored, wants inspiration, or asks for "something interesting".
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +4 more from nicepkg
- +1 more from W-Moorer
Other versions196 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 196
- affaan-m/ECC★ 246ksame name
- bytedance/deer-flow★ 85ksame name
- Imbad0202/academic-research-skills★ 56ksame name
- THU-MAIC/OpenMAIC★ 43ksame name
- HKUSTDial/Supervisor-Skills★ 12ksame name
- genspark-ai/genoffice★ 12ksame name
- advaitpaliwal/feynman★ 10ksame name
- companion-inc/feynman★ 10ksame name
- getcompanion-ai/feynman★ 10ksame name
- jordan-gibbs/hyperresearch★ 4.4ksame name
186 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository52 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-designSkill
- api-integration-testSkill
- constructive-thinkingSkill
- create-prSkill
- e2e-testSkill
- fuzzing-testSkill
- git-commitSkill
- go-benchmarkSkill
- go-ci-workflowSkill
- go-code-reviewerSkill
- go-concurrency-reviewSkill
- go-dependency-auditSkill
- go-error-reviewSkill
- go-logic-reviewSkill
- go-makefile-writerSkill
- go-observability-reviewSkill
- google-searchSkill
- go-performance-reviewSkill
- go-quality-reviewSkill
- go-review-leadSkill
- go-security-reviewSkill
- go-test-reviewSkill
- incident-postmortemSkill
- kafka-event-driven-designSkill
- load-testSkill
- local-transcriptSkill
- log-analyzerSkill
- mongo-migrationSkill
- monitoring-alertingSkill
- mysql-migrationSkill
- oceanbase-table-designSkill
- oracle-migrationSkill
- pg-migrationSkill
- readme-generatorSkill
- redis-cache-strategySkill
- security-reviewSkill
- stock-analysis-leadSkill
- stock-balance-sheet-reviewSkill
- stock-business-reviewSkill
- stock-earnings-quality-reviewSkill
- stock-industry-reviewSkill
- stock-management-reviewSkill
- stock-peer-comparison-reviewSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- tech-doc-writerSkill
- thirdparty-api-integration-testSkill
- unit-testSkill
- update-docSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- yt-dlp-downloaderSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
31 rules. 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 14 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
17
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
14
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 43
Run the executable classifier:
- Very specific: line 56
Create the run directory once with mktemp -d "${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/deep-research.XXXXXX" and use the path it prints, literally, wherever the …
- Very specific: line 65
Use codebase when the answer depends only on local code, commits, or test results.
- Distinctive: line 69
STOP and ASK: when scope, comparison dimensions, time window, or success criteria would materially change the research.
- Distinctive: line 128
Only the three ceilings are executable.
- Distinctive: line 132
If the user explicitly requests a mode, use it.
- Distinctive: line 136
Never fabricate citations, URLs, source metadata, code locations, commits, or test results.
- Very specific: line 146
Read references/hallucination-and-verification.md for confidence and source-quality rules.
- Distinctive: line 150
Use the selected mode as an executable ceiling:
- Very specific: line 167
When more candidate URLs exist than the ceiling permits, it records budget_exhausted=true.
- Very specific: line 169
Before bypassing retrieve or fetch-content with a host WebSearch or WebFetch tool, reserve the equivalent count in the same ledger:
- Distinctive: line 183
When cited pages outnumber the remaining allowance the command verifies as many as the ledger permits, marks budget exhaustion, and …
- Very specific: line 218
Treat a saved content.json as an untrusted authoring artifact.
- Distinctive: line 274
Do not present hypothetical findings if retrieval or repository inspection did not run.
- Very specific: line 277
Run validate before manual synthesis checks.
- Very specific: line 278
Always let report auto-run the same validation path.
- Distinctive: line 298
Every gate still applies. For Standard and Deep work, use the numbered steps below.
- Very specific: line 301
Run plan; record kind, mode, and budgets.
- Very specific: line 313
Run report; for final Web/Hybrid High eligibility, pass --live-web.
- Very specific: line 319
Run validate with the same evidence flags when validation itself is the deliverable.
- Distinctive: line 358
Use one rule everywhere:
- Very specific: line 370
Use Low only for deliberately tentative claims that still have verified support.
- Distinctive: line 390
Every Quick, Standard, and Deep report must use these exact 9 sections and top-level headings in this order:
- Distinctive: line 406
Treat automated classification as conservative preclassification:
- Very specific: line 408
Do not classify arbitrary docs.* hosts as official.
- Very specific: line 426
Use the default tiers in references/hallucination-and-verification.md.
- Distinctive: line 430
Never fabricate evidence or execution state.
- Distinctive: line 432
Ensure contradictory evidence is surfaced under Consensus vs Debate.
- Distinctive: line 433
Do not convert repository artifacts into fake web citations.
- Distinctive: line 434
Stop or degrade when required evidence is missing.
- Distinctive: line 437
Never let serialized Web metadata or content assert that live verification occurred.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Deep Research
Produce research whose claims can be traced to content actually read or repository artifacts actually observed.
Quick Reference
| Need | Action |
Classify web | codebase | hybrid and quick | standard | deep | Run plan before retrieval |
| Enforce cumulative query, extraction, and report-source ceilings | Reuse the session artifact created by plan --output |
| Author findings JSON | Load references/output-contract-template.md |
| Assess hallucination, confidence, or source quality | Load references/hallucination-and-verification.md |
| Understand Web trust boundaries and safe egress | Load references/web-evidence-and-egress.md |
| Apply programmer-specific query/evidence patterns | Load references/research-patterns.md |
| Claim runtime behavior from tests | Load references/test-receipt-schema.md |
Mandatory Gates
Execute gates in strict order. Stop when a gate blocks later work.
1) Scope → 2) Ambiguity → 3) Evidence → 4) Research Mode
→ 5) Hallucination Awareness → 6) Budget Control
→ 7) Content Extraction → 8) Execution Integrity1) Scope Classification Gate
Select one research kind and one goal.
- Research kind:
web | codebase | hybrid - Category: comparison, trend, claim verification, technical deep-dive, codebase audit
- Goal: Know, Compare, Verify, Recommend, or Audit
Run the executable classifier:
python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/deep_research.py plan \
--request "<user request>" \
--output /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.jsonEvery command below is written python3 scripts/deep_research.py ... for
brevity; run it as python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/deep_research.py ....
For codebase and hybrid work the working directory is the user's
repository, not this skill, so a bare relative path will not resolve.
Create the run directory once with mktemp -d "${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/deep-research.XXXXXX"
and use the path it prints, literally, wherever the examples say
/path/to/run-dir — shell variables do not survive between Bash calls. Keep the
template: on macOS, mktemp without one ignores $TMPDIR and writes under
/var/folders, which Claude Code's sandbox refuses, as it refuses /tmp itself.
The output is a versioned session ledger, not a disposable plan. Reuse that exact file for every budget-consuming command in the research run.
Use codebase when the answer depends only on local code, commits, or test results. Do not perform web retrieval merely to manufacture URLs. Use hybrid only when external evidence is part of the question.
2) Ambiguity Resolution Gate
STOP and ASK when scope, comparison dimensions, time window, or success criteria would materially change the research. Do not ask again for constraints already supplied.
3) Evidence Requirements Gate
Define the evidence chain before retrieval.
| Conclusion Type | Minimum Evidence Chain | Target Confidence |
| Narrow single fact | 1 validator-controlled live capture + T1 re-derived from its effective final URL + exact supporting excerpt | High |
| Direct code fact | Code line/excerpt verified by reading the declared Git blob at an existing hexadecimal commit | High |
| Runtime code behavior | Every cited code item is pinned to one commit/tree + one host test receipt covers the finding and every code ID, names every tested path, passes relevance review, and matches that clean snapshot | High |
| Best-practice recommendation | 1 primary basis + 2 independent practitioner or empirical sources | Medium (High only under the Confidence Rule) |
| Technology comparison | 3 independent benchmarks/reviews with methodology | Medium |
| Trend/adoption claim | 2 data sources from different periods | Medium |
| Disputed or fast-moving topic | 4 sources across tiers + explicit conflict treatment | Per claim: High, Medium or Low |
Each finding must also carry a claim-support review. Excerpt containment proves the quotation is real; it does not prove the quotation supports the sentence built on it. These are two verdicts and the report prints both.
"support_review": {
"stance": "supports",
"rationale": "why this excerpt entails this claim",
"reviewed_by": "author"
}stance is one of supports | partial | context-only | contradicts. A missing
block is unreviewed, never an implicit pass, and caps the finding below High.
A polarity or unquoted-number screen can only remove support, never grant it;
a screened conflict without an attestation makes the finding unusable.
Use typed evidence:
- Web:
{"kind":"web","url":"...","excerpt":"exact text from content.json"} - Code:
{"kind":"code","id":"code-1"} - Commit:
{"kind":"commit","id":"commit-head"} - Test:
{"kind":"test","id":"test-1"}
Bare citations URLs are legacy inputs. Treat them as unverified because they do not prove extraction or claim support.
4) Research Mode Gate
Auto-select mode with plan; pass an explicit user mode as --mode.
| Signal | → Mode |
| Single factual question, "quick check" | Quick |
| Default research task | Standard |
| Thorough/deep request, multi-vendor decision, architecture/trend report | Deep |
| Security-sensitive or production-impacting decision | Deep |
| Mode | Retrieval ceiling | Extraction ceiling | Report-source ceiling | Typical range (advisory) |
| Quick | 10 | 5 | 8 | 5–10 retrievals, 3–8 sources |
| Standard | 25 | 10 | 20 | 15–25 retrievals, 8–20 sources |
| Deep | 50 | 15 | 40 | 30–50 retrievals, 15–40 sources |
Only the three ceilings are executable. The advisory column is guidance for planning a run; no command enforces a floor, so a Quick report citing two sources is not rejected.
If the user explicitly requests a mode, use it. Classification is deterministic and behavior-tested.
5) Hallucination Awareness Gate
Never fabricate citations, URLs, source metadata, code locations, commits, or test results.
| Risk Level | Information | Verification Method |
| High | API signature/configuration | Official primary documentation + validator-controlled live capture + extracted excerpt |
| High | Benchmark/statistic | Original data and disclosed methodology |
| High | Security/compliance | Official advisory, standard, or regulator |
| High | Repository behavior | Code evidence and, for runtime behavior, a passing test |
| Medium | Architecture recommendation | Independent sources with limitations |
Read references/hallucination-and-verification.md for confidence and source-quality rules.
6) Budget Control Gate
Use the selected mode as an executable ceiling:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py retrieve \
--session /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.json \
--query "<subtopic 1>" \
--query "<subtopic 2>" \
--output /path/to/run-dir/results.jsonThe parser rejects more than 10, 25, or 50 queries in one Quick, Standard, or Deep invocation, and the ledger enforces the same ceilings across repeated invocations, so two calls cannot each consume the full allowance. The hard ceiling is 50 retrieval calls per Deep session; one query is one call.
fetch-content defaults to the remaining session extraction allowance and
rejects an explicitly larger per-invocation --limit.
When more candidate URLs exist than the ceiling permits, it records budget_exhausted=true; bundled validate and report commands consume that state automatically.
Before bypassing retrieve or fetch-content with a host WebSearch or
WebFetch tool, reserve the equivalent count in the same ledger:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py reserve-budget \
--session /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.json \
--budget retrieval_calls \
--count 1 \
--output /path/to/run-dir/budget_reservation.jsonFinal live re-verification has its own budget line, live_verifications
(Quick 5 / Standard 10 / Deep 15), because it opens real sockets. validate
and report therefore require --session whenever --live-web is passed.
When cited pages outnumber the remaining allowance the command verifies as many
as the ledger permits, marks budget exhaustion, and degrades to Partial rather
than fetching past the ceiling.
The ledger is an operational concurrency-safe constraint, not a tamper-proof
audit log. It cannot account for tool calls that bypass both the bundled
commands and reserve-budget. plan refuses to overwrite an existing ledger,
but a second plan to a new path starts a fresh allowance: the ceiling is per
ledger, not per question. Artifacts stamped with the first ledger's session_id
are refused under the second, so nothing is double-counted — if you restart,
say so under Gaps & Limitations and report the ledger actually used.
7) Content Extraction Gate
For web and hybrid, content extraction is mandatory — fetch actual content before synthesis:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py fetch-content \
--session /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.json \
--results /path/to/run-dir/results.json \
--output /path/to/run-dir/content.jsonEach web evidence object must identify an exact excerpt found in a successfully extracted item. A search snippet, reachable URL, or failed/low-yield page cannot support a finding.
fetch-content accepts only public http/https targets, connects to an
already validated IP while preserving hostname verification, and revalidates
before every redirect hop. See references/web-evidence-and-egress.md.
Live verification reads the whole page: it lifts both the authoring download cap (512 KB) and the extraction cap (15,000 characters), because a correct excerpt from the tail of a long reference page could otherwise never match. Excerpt matching also folds typographic variants — curly quotes, dashes, non-breaking spaces, backticks — so a page's rendering cannot reject a quote that is right.
Treat a saved content.json as an untrusted authoring artifact. Loading it
always clears live_verified, so it may support Medium after excerpt matching
but never primary status or High. Web High requires --live-web on the final
validate or report, which refetches each cited URL through the safe
transport and derives tier/type from the effective final URL. Caller-provided
authority fields never grant authority.
For codebase, use search-codebase; content extraction is not required:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py search-codebase \
--pattern "verifyToken" \
--root /path/to/repo \
--output /path/to/run-dir/code_evidence.jsonsearch-codebase pins clean tracked content to the real HEAD object ID and
emits modified, staged, or untracked content as working-tree-unpinned, which
cannot support a High direct-code finding. The validator rereads
<commit>:<path> and compares the declared line, excerpt, and commit subject.
Execute a focused test once through the host's normal permission path. Then
create a deep-research/host-test-receipt-v2 receipt and import it:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py snapshot-codebase \
--root /path/to/repo \
--output /path/to/run-dir/repository_snapshot_before.json
go test -run TestVerifyToken ./auth
python3 scripts/deep_research.py snapshot-codebase \
--root /path/to/repo \
--output /path/to/run-dir/repository_snapshot_after.json
python3 scripts/deep_research.py import-test-receipt \
--receipt /path/to/run-dir/host_test_receipt.json \
--code-evidence /path/to/run-dir/code_evidence.json \
--output /path/to/run-dir/code_and_test_evidence.jsonsnapshot-codebase only reads repository root, HEAD, tree hash, and dirty
state; write its output outside the repository. The host compares before/after
snapshots and copies the unchanged clean identity into the receipt. The helper
never executes receipt argv.
Runtime High treats the finding's complete code evidence set as atomic: one
receipt must cover the finding, every code ID, and every tested path on one
clean commit/tree. This skill pre-approves no test command: a test runs the
repository's code, and a prefix rule cannot exclude flags — go test* also
matches go test -exec <any program>, git log* matches git log --output=<any
file>. The host's permission prompt is the review step. Load
references/test-receipt-schema.md for the full contract.
8) Execution Integrity Gate
- Do not present hypothetical findings if retrieval or repository inspection did not run.
- Distinguish "source says X" from "snippet mentions X".
- Report the actual number of retrieved, successfully extracted, repository, and cited evidence units.
- Run
validatebefore manual synthesis checks. - Always let
reportauto-run the same validation path. - For a final Web report, perform live verification once with
report --live-web --validation-output ...; do not first runvalidate --live-webunless a second fresh network check is intentional. - Omit unsupported findings from substantive report sections and expose the reason in Gaps.
Unified Workflow
For a Quick single-fact check, collapse the collection half into one command:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py quick-check \
--request "<narrow question>" \
--claim "<the claim to verify>" \
--workdir /path/to/run-dir/qcIt plans, retrieves, extracts, and writes a findings skeleton with the
candidate evidence already in place. Fill in each excerpt and support_review,
save as findings.json, then run the single report --live-web it prints.
Every gate still applies. For Standard and Deep work, use the numbered steps
below.
- Run
plan; record kind, mode, and budgets. When it reports a classification confidence belowhigh, confirm the routing or rerun with--research-kind/--mode; a deterministic keyword rule always answers, which is not the same as answering correctly. - Split the question into 2–4 subtopics.
- Collect required artifacts:
web:retrieve→fetch-contentcodebase:search-codebase; for runtime claims, snapshot the repository, execute one focused host test, snapshot again, andimport-test-receipthybrid: both paths
- Author
findings.jsonwith typed evidence and exact excerpts. - Optionally run offline
validatewith every required artifact to catch shape/excerpt errors. Offline serialized Web evidence is capped below High. - Run
report; for final Web/Hybrid High eligibility, pass--live-web. It performs the fresh verification once, writes--validation-output, derives the executive summary from usable findings, and renders the canonical contract. - Deliver the report without renaming, splitting, or omitting top-level sections.
Run validate with the same evidence flags when validation itself is the
deliverable; --live-web and --check-live both open real sockets, so both
require --session and both draw on live_verifications. validate and
report also refuse artifacts stamped with a different session_id than the
ledger you pass, so the budget line in the report always describes the run that
produced the evidence. When a report is
required, prefer a single report --live-web so the same pages are not
fetched twice.
Final Web report:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py report \
--question "<question>" \
--research-kind web \
--results /path/to/run-dir/results.json \
--content /path/to/run-dir/content.json \
--findings /path/to/run-dir/findings.json \
--session /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.json \
--live-web \
--validation-output /path/to/run-dir/validation.json \
--output /path/to/run-dir/report.mdPure codebase report:
python3 scripts/deep_research.py report \
--question "<question>" \
--research-kind codebase \
--code-evidence /path/to/run-dir/code_evidence.json \
--findings /path/to/run-dir/findings.json \
--session /path/to/run-dir/research_plan.json \
--validation-output /path/to/run-dir/validation.json \
--output /path/to/run-dir/report.mdConfidence Rule
Use one rule everywhere:
- Require an attested claim-support review (
stance: supports, no screened conflict, no unquoted number) for everyHigh. Citation integrity and claim support are separate gates and High needs both. - Allow
Highfor a narrow single fact only when the current validator/report process freshly fetched the cited page, matched the excerpt, and re-derived T1 from the effective final URL. - Allow
Highfor a direct code fact only after the validator rereads and matches pinned Git content. - Allow
Highfor runtime behavior only when every cited code item is pinned to one Git commit/tree and one reviewed host receipt covers the finding, all code IDs, and all tested paths on that same clean snapshot. - Require two independent verified units, including a primary unit, for all other
Highfindings. - Downgrade to
Mediumwhen some verified support exists but the High rule is unmet. - Use
Lowonly for deliberately tentative claims that still have verified support. - Mark unusable and omit when no evidence validates.
The CLI records requested and effective confidence plus downgrade reasons. Unpinned working-tree evidence may remain useful at Medium or Low when its current file content validates, but it is never represented as belonging to HEAD.
Honest Degradation
| Level | Executable Condition | Action |
| Full | Required artifacts exist; every included finding meets requested confidence; no extraction failure | Deliver all nine sections |
| Partial | Usable findings remain, but a finding is downgraded, extraction partially fails, or the budget ends with non-critical gaps | Deliver all nine sections and name gaps |
| Blocked | A required artifact is missing, no finding has usable evidence, or budget exhaustion prevents the core chain | Stop claiming conclusions; emit or report only the blocked state and next evidence needed |
Bundled content artifacts propagate budget exhaustion automatically. Pass --budget-exhausted to validate or report when an external or manually assembled artifact reached its ceiling.
Canonical Output Contract
Every Quick, Standard, and Deep report must use these exact 9 sections and top-level headings in this order:
Research QuestionMethodExecutive SummaryKey FindingsDetailed AnalysisConsensus vs DebateSource Quality NotesSourcesGaps & Limitations
Quick mode may keep Detailed Analysis and Consensus vs Debate concise; it must not omit them. Load references/output-contract-template.md before authoring findings or delivering a report.
Source Quality
Treat automated classification as conservative preclassification:
- Do not classify arbitrary
docs.*hosts as official. - Classify
.eduas institutional, not automatically official product documentation. - Emit T1–T5, classification basis, date or
unknown, sponsorship, and methodology for each web source. - Ignore caller-provided authority labels during validation. Re-derive tier/type from the normalized URL and, for live evidence, the effective final URL.
- Automatic T1 comes from two places only: recognized government namespaces,
and
references/source-authority-registry.json, a curated list binding a domain to a standards body, government or owning project with a stated basis and check date. Registry classifications carry aregistry:basis so a checked ownership record is never confused with a URL-shape guess. An unlisted host keeps its heuristic tier; absence is not evidence of untrustworthiness. - A project's own documentation is T1 about that project's own behavior and is
simultaneously
vendor_self. It cannot be the independent primary unit for a comparison, benchmark or recommendation. - Surface unknown sponsorship/methodology rather than guessing.
Use the default tiers in references/hallucination-and-verification.md.
Safety Rules
- Never fabricate evidence or execution state.
- Require typed support for every substantive claim.
- Ensure contradictory evidence is surfaced under Consensus vs Debate.
- Do not convert repository artifacts into fake web citations.
- Stop or degrade when required evidence is missing.
- Route every bundled Web request through the public-network-only transport;
never add a raw
urlopenbypass. - Never let serialized Web metadata or content assert that live verification occurred.
Anti-Examples — DO NOT Do These
- Synthesize from snippets — extract the page and cite an exact supporting excerpt.
- Attach a URL without support text — a URL proves location, not claim support.
- Quote page source instead of rendered text — an excerpt copied from
markup (
tr><th>Default:</th><td>all</td></tr) or assembled into a list you wrote yourself is not a quotation and will not validate. - Treat a matched excerpt as a supported claim — containment proves the quote is real, not that it backs the sentence. Review the claim against the excerpt and record the stance; a claim that inverts its own quote is unusable.
- Call one generic source "official" because its host starts with docs — the registry binds a domain to an owner; a URL shape does not.
- Call every High finding a two-domain claim — apply the narrow T1 single-fact exception.
- Call every one-source claim High — the exception requires T1 primary content and a narrow fact.
- Force repository facts into fake web citations — cite code, commit, and test evidence IDs.
- Treat exit code 0 or partial receipt coverage as semantic proof — require a focused selector and one receipt covering the finding plus the complete same-snapshot code set.
- Generate a report without content for web research — the parser must stop.
- Split Consensus and Debate into top-level headings — keep both under section 6.
- Exceed a mode budget — stop, mark budget exhaustion, and degrade honestly.
- Trust caller-authored T1 or
live_verifiedfields — re-fetch in the validator and re-derive authority from the effective final URL. - Fetch
file:, FTP, localhost, private, link-local, or metadata targets — reject before reserving budget or opening a connection, including after redirects.
BAD: Finding (High): X is faster. citations=["https://example.com"]
GOOD: Finding (Medium): X was faster in this benchmark, with method limits. evidence=[{"kind":"web","url":"...","excerpt":"..."}]Load References Selectively
| When | → Load |
| Every report | references/output-contract-template.md — nine-section structure, findings schema, evidence and support_review examples |
| Quantitative, high-stakes, disputed, sponsored, or model-generated claims | references/hallucination-and-verification.md — verification, confidence, claim support, T1–T5, degradation |
| Debugging, APIs, code search, comparisons, benchmarks, standards, security | references/research-patterns.md — topic-specific query and evidence patterns |
| Any runtime-behavior finding backed by a test | references/test-receipt-schema.md — execute through the host once, then import and statically validate |
Subcommands Reference
| Subcommand | Purpose | Key Flags |
plan | Classify kind/mode and initialize a session ledger | --request, --mode, --research-kind, --output |
reserve-budget | Reserve ledger usage before external host search/fetch | --session, --budget, --count, --output |
retrieve | Search DDG Lite under cumulative budget | --query, --session, --limit-per-query, --output |
fetch-content | Safely extract public HTTP(S) content under cumulative budget | --results or --url, --session, --limit, --output |
quick-check | One-shot Quick collection plus a findings skeleton | --request, --claim, --url, --workdir |
search-codebase | Produce per-file pinned or unpinned repository evidence | --pattern, --root, --glob, --output |
snapshot-codebase | Read repository root, HEAD, tree, and dirty state without executing tests | --root, --output |
import-test-receipt | Statically verify and append one host-created receipt | --receipt, --code-evidence, --output |
validate | Re-read typed evidence and optionally live-verify cited Web pages | --research-kind, --results, --content, --code-evidence, --findings, --session, --live-web, --timeout, --output |
report | Auto-validate, optionally live-verify Web evidence, enforce source ceiling, and render nine sections | --question, --research-kind, --session, evidence flags, --live-web, --timeout, --validation-output, --output |
Search and Extraction Fallbacks
If DDG Lite fails, use an available search tool with the same query plan and preserve its result metadata. On 2026-09-24 DDG Lite answered every query from this machine with a bot challenge; retrieve now reports that as an error and exits 2 instead of returning the challenge page as a result. The host WebSearch tool is not Google: measured 2026-09-24, it ignores before:/after:, and site:stackoverflow.com silently returns other hosts — Stack Overflow is unreachable (403 to fetch-content, refused by WebSearch and WebFetch), so check result hosts against every filter. If static extraction fails, use a browser-capable fetcher and save equivalent content records. Imported records stay untrusted and cannot produce Web High; the bundled validator must still make its own safe live capture. Report the actual method used.
Bundled Assets
The shipped file inventory lives in references/bundled-assets.md, checked
against the directory in both directions by a regression test.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

