Deep Research Framework#

A structured deep-research skill for producing rigorous, balanced, and actionable research reports on any topic.

Overview#

This skill enforces a disciplined research methodology. It is NOT a simple "search and summarize" tool. It demands evidence quality control, counterevidence inclusion, and honest flagging of gaps.

Outputs:

1. Structured Research Report — full-depth analysis organized by dimensions
2. One-Page Summary Card — key findings, confidence levels, and action items

Phase 0 — Pre-Research Clarification#

Before starting research, confirm these inputs from the user or infer them from context:

InputRequiredDefault if absentResearch topicYes—Target audienceRecommended"decision maker / general professional"Key dimensions to focus onOptionalUse standard dimension set (see references)Time scopeOptional"recent 1–3 years unless specified"Depth levelOptional"standard" (balanced breadth and depth)

If the topic is ambiguous, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding.

Phase 1 — Research Design#

1.1 Define the Research Objective#

State in 1–2 sentences: What question is this research answering, and what decision or understanding will it enable?

1.2 Define the Audience#

State who will read this: their background, what they already know, and what they need to walk away with.

1.3 Scope and Constraints#

• Time scope: Which period does the research cover?
• Geographic scope: Global? China? Specific region?
• Exclusions: What is explicitly out of scope?

1.4 Decompose into Research Dimensions#

Break the topic into 4–7 dimensions. For each dimension:

• Write 2–4 key questions that need answering
• Assign a priority: Core / Supporting / Context

Use references/dimension-templates.md for standard dimension sets by research type (industry, technology, company, product, market).

Phase 2 — Multi-Source Research Execution#

2.1 Source Strategy#

For each dimension, gather from at least 2–3 distinct source types:

Source TypeExamplesDefault CredibilityPrimary dataOfficial reports, regulatory filings, academic papers★★★★★Industry reportsMcKinsey, Gartner, IDC, CB Insights, Frost & Sullivan★★★★News & mediaReuters, Bloomberg, FT, 36kr, 财新, 虎嗅★★★Expert commentaryInterviews, conference talks, analyst notes★★★Community & forumsReddit, Zhihu, GitHub Issues, industry forums★★AI-generated synthesisLLM summaries without cited sources★

See references/credibility-rubric.md for detailed credibility rating rules.

2.2 Search Execution#

For each research dimension:

1. Formulate targeted search queries (try multiple angles)
2. Retrieve results using web_search or available tools
3. For each piece of evidence, record: claim, source, credibility rating, date

2.3 Counterevidence Requirement (MANDATORY)#

For every major claim in the report, actively search for contradicting evidence:

• If counterevidence exists: include it alongside the main claim, labeled [反面证据]
• If no counterevidence found: note [未发现明显反面证据，可信度待验]
• NEVER omit counterevidence to make the report cleaner or more conclusive

2.4 Conflicting Information Handling#

When two credible sources contradict each other:

• Present BOTH positions side-by-side
• Note the source, date, and credibility of each
• Do NOT pick a side unless evidence weight is clearly asymmetric
• Label the conflict: [矛盾信息 — 并列呈现]

2.5 Information Gap Flagging (MANDATORY)#

When a key question cannot be answered from available sources:

• Mark it clearly: [信息不足 — 无法得出可靠结论]
• State what type of source would be needed to fill the gap
• NEVER fabricate data, statistics, or citations to fill gaps

Phase 3 — Synthesis and Analysis#

3.1 Evidence Weighting#

Synthesize findings dimension by dimension:

• Higher-credibility sources take precedence
• Recent data (within 12 months) takes precedence over older data
• Consensus across multiple independent sources strengthens confidence

3.2 Insight Generation#

Go beyond summarizing to identify:

• Key patterns and trends
• Surprising or counterintuitive findings
• Implications for the research objective
• Open questions that remain after research

3.3 Confidence Levels#

Assign a confidence level to each major finding:

LevelMeaning高 (High)Multiple independent ★★★★+ sources agree中 (Medium)Some evidence, limited cross-validation低 (Low)Single source, low credibility, or conflicting signals未知 (Unknown)Insufficient data, explicitly flagged

Phase 4 — Output Delivery#

4.1 Full Research Report#

Follow the template in assets/report-template.md. Structure:

1. 研究概览 — objective, audience, scope, date

2. 执行摘要 — 5–7 bullet key findings with confidence levels

3. 维度分析 — one section per dimension with:

   • Key findings
   • Supporting evidence (with source + credibility)
   • Counterevidence
   • Confidence level
   • Information gaps (if any)

4. 矛盾与争议 — consolidated list of conflicting information

5. 综合洞察 — cross-dimension synthesis and implications

6. 信息缺口清单 — all flagged gaps in one place

7. 参考资料 — all sources with credibility ratings

4.2 One-Page Summary Card#

Follow the template in assets/summary-card-template.md. Deliver after the full report.

The card contains:

• Topic + audience + date (header)
• 3 most important findings (with confidence)
• 1 most important counterpoint
• 1 key uncertainty / gap
• Suggested next actions (if applicable)
• Overall research confidence score (High / Medium / Low)

Quality Checklist (self-check before delivery)#

Before presenting the output, verify:

• Every major claim has a cited source with credibility rating
• Counterevidence section is non-empty or explicitly noted
• All conflicting information is presented side-by-side, not resolved by choosing one
• All information gaps are explicitly labeled
• No statistics or citations were fabricated
• Confidence levels are assigned to all major findings
• One-page summary card is included
• Report follows the template structure

Important Rules#

1. No fabrication: If data doesn't exist, say so. Never invent statistics, quotes, or citations.
2. No false certainty: Do not present uncertain findings as definitive.
3. Counterevidence is mandatory: A report without counterevidence is incomplete.
4. Conflicting sources must coexist: Do not silently pick one side.
5. Credibility must be visible: Every claim should be traceable to a rated source.