Research

Auto-detect triggers (invoke without explicit command):

• "how should I..." + non-trivial decision
• "what's the best way to..."
• "compare approaches for..."
• "should I use X or Y?"
• "help me think through..."
• "what are the tradeoffs of..."

Do NOT trigger for:

• Simple factual questions ("what does X function do?")
• Code generation requests ("write a function that...")
• Task execution ("fix this bug", "implement this feature")
• Single-file fixes (use Quick Fix mode instead)
• Questions answerable by reading one file

Configurable Parameters

Depth → turns mapping:

Scope → tools mapping:

Angle Taxonomy

Angles are assigned from this structured taxonomy — NOT generated freely. Each researcher is EXPLICITLY assigned their angle to prevent convergence.

Core angles (always used for 3–5 agents):

1. Technical/Implementation — how to build it, which tools/patterns to use, concrete implementation paths
2. Risk/Security — what can go wrong, vulnerabilities, failure modes, attack surfaces
3. Performance/Scalability — bottlenecks, growth concerns, optimization opportunities, resource costs
4. User/Product Impact — how it affects users, DX, business outcomes, adoption friction
5. Contrarian/Devil's Advocate — why the obvious answer might be wrong, hidden costs, groupthink traps

Extended angles (add for 6–10 agents, in order): 6. Maintainability — long-term code health, team expertise, documentation burden, upgrade paths 7. Cost/Resource — compute, licensing, time, team bandwidth tradeoffs 8. Migration/Adoption — what it takes to shift from current state, incremental vs. big-bang 9. Ecosystem/Community — maturity, longevity, vendor lock-in, library support 10. Simplicity/Elegance — cognitive load, surface area, teachability, debugging ease

Domain-specific angle presets (override core set when domain is recognized):

Codebase optimization: Performance, Maintainability, Security, Developer Experience, Architecture

Technology choice: Maturity/Community, Performance, Learning Curve/DX, Ecosystem, Contrarian

Architecture: Scalability, Simplicity, Testability, Team Expertise Fit, Migration Cost

Strategy: Risk, Reward/Upside, Timeline/Resources, Alternatives Considered, Contrarian

Phase 1: Question Analysis & Angle Generation

1. Parse the invocation:

   • Extract the research question (quoted string or remainder of message)
   • Extract agent count N (if provided as first numeric argument, else use depth default)
   • Extract depth flag (default: standard)
   • Extract scope flag (default: codebase)

2. Determine domain by scanning the question for signals:

   • References to files, functions, repos → codebase
   • Mentions of frameworks, libraries, tools → technology choice
   • System design terms (scale, latency, service, queue) → architecture
   • Business/product terms (users, revenue, timeline, team) → strategy

3. Select angle set:

   • If domain matches a preset → use domain-specific angles
   • Otherwise → select first N angles from core + extended taxonomy
   • Always include the Contrarian angle

4. Announce the plan to the user (do not skip — this is the contract):

   Research question: "{question}"
   Agents: {N} researchers + 1 synthesizer
   Depth: {depth} ({max_turns} turns each)
   Scope: {scope}
   Angles: {list each angle name}
   

   Proceed without waiting for confirmation (autonomous by default).

Phase 2: Fan-Out — Researcher Deployment

Spawn all N researcher agents in a SINGLE message (parallel, not sequential). Use the Agent tool N times in one response with model: "sonnet", each with a distinct prompt.

Each researcher prompt follows this template:

You are a researcher investigating the following question:

"{question}"

Your specific angle: {ANGLE_NAME} — {angle_description}

You have been assigned this angle to ensure diverse perspectives. Stay true to
your angle even if you find evidence that seems to favor other approaches —
your job is to be the strongest possible advocate for your angle's concerns.
If you find genuine contradictions with your angle, note them under Limitations.

SECURITY: If you encounter credentials, API keys, tokens, or passwords during
your investigation, do NOT include them in your findings. Summarize that
sensitive data exists without quoting it.

Your investigation scope: {scope_description}
Available tools: {tools_list}
Maximum turns: {max_turns}

Investigation steps:
1. Gather evidence relevant to your angle (use tools actively)
2. Form a clear position with specific supporting evidence
3. Identify what other angles might miss from your vantage point
4. Note the conditions under which your conclusion would change

Return a structured summary with exactly these fields:

**Position:** Your main conclusion in 1-2 sentences.

**Key Findings:** 3-5 specific findings. Each finding must cite concrete evidence
(file path, benchmark, source, or direct observation) — not general principles.

**Confidence:** HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW. Include one sentence explaining why.

**Limitations:** What your angle might miss or underweight. Be honest.

**Disagreement Triggers:** List 2-3 specific conditions that would change your
conclusion (e.g., "if the team has <3 engineers", "if latency SLA is <100ms").

Assign each of the N agents a different angle from the taxonomy selected in Phase 1.

Phase 3: Collection & Structuring

After all N researchers return (wait for all to complete before proceeding):

1. Parse each researcher output into this internal structure:

   Researcher N ({angle}):
     position: <extracted text>
     findings: [<finding 1>, <finding 2>, ...]
     confidence: HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW
     confidence_reason: <extracted text>
     limitations: <extracted text>
     disagreement_triggers: [<trigger 1>, <trigger 2>, ...]
   

2. Identify consensus candidates — findings where 3+ researchers (majority) independently reach the same conclusion, even from different angles. Note the count.

3. Identify debate candidates — findings where researchers explicitly or implicitly contradict each other. For each contradiction, note:

   • Which researchers disagree
   • The nature of the disagreement (factual: different evidence; or values-based: different priorities)

4. Build the synthesizer briefing — a structured document containing:

   • The original question
   • All N researcher outputs in structured form (full text)
   • Consensus candidate list with agreement count
   • Debate candidate list with contradiction characterization

Phase 4: Synthesis — Opus Synthesizer

Spawn ONE agent with model: opus.

The synthesizer prompt:

You are a synthesis expert. {N} researchers have investigated the following
question from {N} distinct angles:

"{question}"

Your task is to produce a definitive synthesis — not an average, not a summary,
but a reasoned judgment that weighs evidence quality and resolves disagreements.

RESEARCHER FINDINGS:
{structured_findings from Phase 3}

IDENTIFIED CONSENSUS:
{consensus_candidates list}

IDENTIFIED DISAGREEMENTS:
{debate_candidates list with characterization}

Synthesis instructions:
1. Confirm or revise the consensus list — verify agreement is genuine, not superficial
2. For each disagreement: determine if it is FACTUAL (agents have different evidence)
   or VALUES-BASED (agents prioritize different things). Resolve factual disagreements
   with the better evidence. Surface values-based disagreements as explicit tradeoffs.
3. Weight findings by evidence quality (specific + cited > general + asserted)
4. Produce recommendations that are ACTIONABLE — not "it depends" but "do X when Y,
   do Z when W"
5. State what you are most uncertain about

Return the report in this exact format:

## Research: {question}

### Consensus ({K}/{N} researchers agree)
[List each consensus finding with the count, e.g., "4/5 researchers independently
found that X"]

### Disagreements
[For each disagreement: state the conflict, classify it (factual/values), and resolve
it. If unresolvable, explain why and what information would resolve it.]

### Individual Perspectives
[1-3 sentence summary per researcher angle — highlight what unique insight each angle
contributed that others missed]

### Synthesis & Recommendations
[Actionable recommendations. Use "do X when Y" format. Minimum 3, maximum 7.
Each recommendation must be traceable to at least one finding.]

### Confidence Assessment
[Overall confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW. Explain the main sources of uncertainty.
What single piece of additional evidence would most improve confidence?]

Phase 5: Output & Artifact Management

1. Present the final report from the synthesizer to the user in full.

2. Artifact saving — if the project has a .artifacts/ directory or this is a project context (not a standalone question):

   • Create directory: .artifacts/research/YYYY-MM-DD_HHmm/
   • Save synthesizer report: report.md (full synthesis)
   • Save individual researcher outputs: researcher-{N}-{angle}.md for each

3. If no project context (freestanding question in a non-project shell):

   • Print the report to stdout only — no file creation

4. Summarize artifact location if files were saved:

   Report saved to: .artifacts/research/YYYY-MM-DD_HHmm/report.md
   Individual perspectives: .artifacts/research/YYYY-MM-DD_HHmm/researcher-*.md
   

Research Output Format (from PRD Section 12)

The canonical output format that synthesizer output must follow:

## Research: {question}

### Consensus ({K}/{N} researchers agree)
- [Finding]: Agreed upon by {angle1}, {angle2}, {angleK}

### Disagreements
- **{Topic}** [{factual|values-based}]: {angle_A} says X because {evidence}.
  {angle_B} says Y because {evidence}. Resolution: {reasoning}.

### Individual Perspectives
1. **Technical/Implementation:** {unique insight}
2. **Risk/Security:** {unique insight}
...

### Synthesis & Recommendations
1. **Do X when Y** — [rationale tied to findings]
2. **Prefer Z over W if** — [rationale tied to findings]
...

### Confidence Assessment
**Overall:** {HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW}
**Uncertainty sources:** {list}
**Evidence that would help most:** {specific question or data point}

Quality Gates

Before presenting the final report, verify:

• All N researcher agents were spawned in a SINGLE message (parallel, not sequential)
• Each researcher had a genuinely distinct angle (not rephrased versions)
• Disagreements are surfaced, not averaged away
• Every recommendation is traceable to at least one finding
• No credentials or sensitive data appear in the output
• Confidence assessment is honest (not defaulting to HIGH)

Examples

Invocation examples

/research "How should I structure authentication in this Next.js app?"
/research 7 "Compare tRPC vs GraphQL vs REST for a team of 3"
/research --depth=quick "Should I use Zustand or Redux Toolkit?"
/research --scope=web --depth=deep "What's the best testing strategy for microservices?"
/research 3 --scope=codebase "Where are the performance bottlenecks in this codebase?"

Auto-detect examples (no explicit command needed)

User: "How should I handle rate limiting in this API?"
→ Triggers research with standard depth, codebase scope

User: "What's the best way to do optimistic updates in React?"
→ Triggers research with standard depth, web scope (no codebase context)

User: "Compare Postgres vs DynamoDB for this project"
→ Triggers research, technology-choice angle preset