Deep Research

Progress Indicators (User-Facing)

Print this banner once at start:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
/deep-research
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Then print step indicators before beginning work:

• [1/10] Parsing arguments…
• [2/10] Reading context… (if applicable)
• [3/10] Classifying topic…
• [4/10] Planning research angles…
• [5/10] Checking sub-agent availability…
• [6/10] Executing research angles…
• [7/10] Checking for comparisons… (if applicable)
• [8/10] Synthesizing findings…
• [9/10] Resolving output target…
• [10/10] Writing artifact…

For long-running operations (web fetches, multi-angle research), print a start line and a completion line:

  → Researching: {angle}…
  → Complete.

Keep it concise; don't print a line for every shell command.

Workflow

Step 1: Parse arguments

[1/10] Parsing arguments…

Parse from $ARGUMENTS:

• topic: Extract the research subject. May be a bare word, quoted string, or multi-word phrase.
• --depth: surface | standard (default) | exhaustive. Controls breadth and depth of research.
• --focus: Narrow research to a specific angle (e.g. --focus security).
• --context path: Path to a file or directory of supplementary context.
• output-path: A trailing path argument specifying where to write the artifact.

If the topic is unclear, ask the user for clarification:

• Claude Code: use AskUserQuestion
• Codex: use structured user-input tooling when available in the current host/runtime
• Fallback: ask in plain text

The prompt should ask: "What topic would you like me to research?"

Step 2: Read context (if provided)

[2/10] Reading context…

If --context is specified:

• If path is a file: read and extract constraints, focus areas, prior art
• If path is a directory: read all .md files and incorporate
• If path is not found: warn and proceed without context

Context informs topic classification and angle planning but does not replace the skill's methodology.

If --context is not specified, skip this step.

Step 3: Topic classification and schema selection

[3/10] Classifying topic…

Classify the topic to select the appropriate extended schema:

Context (if provided) informs classification -- e.g., context with performance constraints might push a general topic toward technical.

Present classification to user briefly: → Classified as: {type} → using {schema} template

Step 4: Research angle planning

[4/10] Planning research angles…

Based on the topic and classification, plan 3-6 research angles. Each angle is an independent research question or perspective that can be explored in isolation.

Example angles for "event-driven architecture":

• Core patterns and primitives
• Framework/tool landscape
• Operational concerns (monitoring, debugging, testing)
• Migration patterns from request-response
• When NOT to use event-driven

Angle planning rules:

• If --focus is specified, prioritize that angle and reduce others.
• If --context is provided, let context shape which angles are prioritized and what each angle looks for.
• If --depth surface, use 2-3 angles with lighter research per angle.
• If --depth exhaustive, use 5-6 angles with thorough research per angle.

Step 5: Sub-agent availability probe

[5/10] Checking sub-agent availability…
  → research workers: {available | not resolved} ({reason})
  → Selected: Execution Tier {1|2|3} — {description}

Execution Tier 1 -- Parallel worker dispatch (preferred):

Detection logic (provider split):

• Claude Code: Agent tool available -- dispatch multiple concurrent Agent tool calls, each with subagent_type: "general-purpose" and a structured research prompt. Parallelism comes from concurrent tool invocations.
• Cursor: multiple concurrent agent mentions with distinct prompts
• Codex: worker prompts dispatched as parallel agent tasks when multi_agent = true
• Claude.ai: no worker dispatch -- falls through to Execution Tier 2

Execution Tier 2 -- Sequential self-execution:

• Execute each research angle sequentially
• Loses parallelism but preserves completeness
• Log: → research workers: not resolved — falling back to Execution Tier 2 (sequential)

Execution Tier 3 -- Inline execution:

• User explicitly requests inline, or single-angle focus
• Still produces an artifact (artifact-only is an output contract, not an execution contract)

Step 6: Execute research angles

[6/10] Executing research angles…

For each angle, the worker (sub-agent or self) receives:

• Research angle description
• Available sources list
• Context summary (if --context was provided)
• Output format instructions (structured findings for this angle)

Each worker returns structured findings inline to the orchestrator (not written to disk).

Print progress per angle:

  → Researching: {angle}…
  → Complete.

Step 7: Conditional /compare dispatch

[7/10] Checking for comparisons…

If competing options emerge during research (e.g. "which library for X?"):

• Dispatch /compare as a sub-agent with the competing options
• /compare returns its output inline to the orchestrator (no intermediate file, no model-tagged filename)
• The orchestrator embeds the comparison as a supplementary section within the main artifact
• The original extended schema remains the primary structure

If no competing options emerged, skip this step.

Step 8: Aggregate and synthesize

[8/10] Synthesizing findings…

• Merge findings from all research angles
• Identify cross-cutting themes
• Resolve any contradictions between angle findings
• Produce executive summary

Step 9: Resolve output target

[9/10] Resolving output target…

If an explicit output path was provided in $ARGUMENTS, use it directly — no prompt.

Otherwise, determine a default suggestion using OAT-aware detection:

1. Check for .oat/ at repo root (project-level OAT) → suggest .oat/repo/research/
2. Check for ~/.oat/ (user-level OAT) → suggest ~/.oat/research/
3. Fall back to current directory

Then ask the user via AskUserQuestion (Claude Code), structured user-input tooling (Codex), or equivalent:

"Where would you like to write the artifact? (default: {suggested path})"

• If the user confirms (empty response or "yes"), use the suggested path.
• If the user provides a different path, use that instead.
• Create the target directory if it does not exist.

Step 10: Write artifact

[10/10] Writing artifact…

Write the structured research artifact using:

• Base schema structure from references/schema-base.md (Executive Summary, Methodology, Findings, Sources & References)

• Extended schema sections based on classification from references/schema-{type}.md

• Artifact frontmatter contract:

  ---
  skill: deep-research
  schema: { selected schema type }
  topic: '{topic}'
  model: { self-detected model identifier }
  generated_at: { today's date }
  ---
  

  Plus optional keys when applicable: context, depth, focus

• Model-tagged filename: {topic-slug}-{model-id}.md (e.g., event-driven-architecture-opus-4-6.md)

Reference schemas live in: references/schema-base.md and references/schema-{type}.md

Examples

Basic usage

/deep-research "event-driven architecture"

Exhaustive research with focus

/deep-research "React state management in 2026" --depth exhaustive --focus performance

Research with context

/deep-research "authentication patterns for microservices" --context docs/security-requirements.md

Research with output path

/deep-research "Rust vs Go for CLI tools" ~/research/

Troubleshooting

Topic too broad:

• Suggest narrowing with --focus or ask user to scope down
• Do not proceed with an unmanageably broad topic

No web search available:

• Research from local sources and conversation context only
• Note limitations in the Methodology section of the artifact

Schema classification unclear:

• Default to conceptual (most general)
• Note: if topic is "X vs Y", auto-select comparative

Sub-agent dispatch fails:

• Fall back to Execution Tier 2 (sequential)
• Output quality is preserved; only parallelism is lost
• Log: → research workers: not resolved (dispatch failed) — falling back to Execution Tier 2

Output path not writable:

• Fall back to current directory; warn user
• Note the fallback in output so the user knows where the artifact landed

Success Criteria

• Banner printed at start
• Topic parsed and classified into one of 4 schema types
• Research angles planned (3-6 angles)
• Execution tier selected and logged with reason
• Each angle researched with findings returned
• /compare conditionally dispatched when competing options emerge
• Findings aggregated into coherent artifact
• Artifact written with correct schema, frontmatter contract, and model-tagged filename
• Output destination resolved via OAT-aware detection and user prompt (unless explicit path given)
• --depth, --focus, and --context correctly influence research scope and priorities
• Output is always an artifact (never inline-only)