Grounded Research Skill

This skill enforces a structured, citation-first discipline to produce outputs where every factual claim is either verified, explicitly uncertain, or openly declared unknown. The goal: no confident-sounding hallucinations. Ever.

Phase 1 — Claim Taxonomy (do this before writing anything)

Before producing any output, mentally classify every claim the response will make:

Never mix types silently. If a paragraph contains a Type C claim presented with Type A confidence, that's a hallucination risk. Classify first, then write.

Phase 2 — Pre-Response Verification Loop

For every Type B and Type C claim identified in Phase 1:

1. Search before writing — run a web search targeting that specific claim
2. Extract the key fact — find the specific sentence or data point that supports it
3. Note the source tier — see references/source-quality-tiers.md
4. Flag if unverifiable — if no reliable source is found after 2 searches, the claim must be either dropped or explicitly marked as unverified

Only after verification is complete for all B and C claims, proceed to Phase 3.

Verification shortcuts to never take:

• Do not state a statistic without a source, even if you are "pretty sure"
• Do not state someone's current job title, role, or status without searching
• Do not describe a product's current features or pricing without searching
• Do not summarize a study's findings without finding the actual study or a primary report

Phase 3 — Structured Output

Structure all research responses as follows:

3a. Lead with the answer

Give the direct answer first. Do not bury it in preamble.

3b. Inline citations

Every Type B and C claim gets an inline source reference immediately after it. Format: state the claim in your own words, then note the source naturally in prose. Never reproduce long quotes — paraphrase and attribute.

Example (correct):

The ECB held rates steady in April 2026, according to its official press release.

Example (wrong):

The ECB held rates steady in April 2026. [This is stated confidently with no source]

3c. Confidence signals

Use these inline markers when precision matters:

• [High confidence — primary source] — sourced from official/primary publication
• [Medium confidence — secondary source] — sourced from reputable but secondary coverage
• [Low confidence — unverified] — couldn't find a strong source; treat as uncertain
• [Analytical — my interpretation] — this is synthesis/opinion, not a sourced fact

You do not need to add these markers to every sentence — use them where the confidence level is non-obvious or where a reader might otherwise mistake analysis for established fact.

3d. "I don't know" declarations

If a claim cannot be verified and is important to the answer, say so explicitly:

I could not find a reliable source for [X]. This should be verified before acting on it.

This is always better than a confident-sounding guess.

Phase 4 — Confidence Audit

After drafting the response, do a final pass:

1. Scan for any factual claim that lacks a source or uncertainty marker
2. For each: either add attribution, add an uncertainty signal, or remove the claim
3. Check that no Type D (analytical) claim is presented as if it were Type A (established fact)
4. Verify the response does not contradict itself across sections

This audit step is not optional. It's the difference between a grounded response and a plausible-sounding one.

Phase 5 — Source Quality

Read references/source-quality-tiers.md for the full tier guide.

Quick reference:

• Tier 1 (strongest): Official publications, primary studies, government data, company IR
• Tier 2: Major wire services, peer-reviewed journals, established specialist press
• Tier 3: Quality general news, well-sourced blog posts from known experts
• Tier 4: Aggregators, wikis, forums — only as pointers to Tier 1–3, never as the final source

When sources conflict, report the conflict. Do not silently pick one.

Special Cases

Rapidly changing topics (breaking news, live events)

• State the timestamp of your most recent source explicitly
• Add: "This situation may have developed since [date/time of source]"
• Do not speculate about what "probably" happened after your last source

Technical / security claims

• Prefer CVE databases, vendor advisories, NIST, and official security bulletins
• Do not paraphrase vulnerability details in ways that could introduce inaccuracy
• If the claim involves a specific version, configuration, or exploit, find the primary advisory

Medical / legal claims

• Always source to peer-reviewed literature, official guidelines, or regulatory bodies
• Always add: "This is not medical/legal advice. Consult a qualified professional."
• Never state a treatment or legal position as settled if the primary literature shows debate

Historical research (pre-cutoff, no search needed)

• Type A claims can be stated without search
• But if the user is researching something where recent scholarship might have updated the consensus (e.g. archaeology, historical attribution, economic history), flag it

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Output Length Guidance

• For quick fact checks: 2–4 sentences + source. Do not pad.
• For research summaries: structured prose, one section per sub-topic, sources inline.
• For contested topics: present multiple positions with their respective sources. Do not collapse to one view unless the evidence is overwhelming and sourced.
• Always prioritise precision over comprehensiveness. A shorter, accurate answer beats a longer, partly-hallucinated one.