deep-research

Dieser Auszug wurde bei der Prüfung gespeichert. Die externe Quelle enthält die vollständige und aktuelle Version.

---
name: deep-research
description: Produce an in-depth, source-grounded research report. Use for broad questions requiring multiple research threads, reconciliation, and a cited report rather than a quick factual lookup.
---

# Deep research

Use separate agents for source gathering and final synthesis so each role keeps a clean context. The lead coordinates, interviews, delegates reconnaissance, checks coverage, and validates the final report; it does not perform independent web research.

For a narrow fact or small documentation lookup, answer directly instead of using this workflow.

## 1. Define the question

Ask one focused round at a time until the audience, decision, boundaries, desired depth, source constraints, date range, output location, and success criteria are clear. Propose a research question and outline for approval. Do not begin full research before approval.

When the topic needs a methodological lens, read [references/research-frameworks.md](references/research-frameworks.md) only for the applicable framework.

## 2. Delegate reconnaissance

Launch a small reconnaissance assignment to identify terminology, source types, obvious subquestions, and likely blind spots. Use its findings to divide the outline into non-overlapping research threads. Keep a coverage map connecting every approved section to at least one assignment.

Before launching researchers or a report writer, read [references/agent-briefs.md](references/agent-briefs.md) and apply the relevant contract. Give each researcher one thread and one output file under `research_notes/`. Parallelize independent threads; keep dependent work sequential.

Completion criterion: every outline section has an owner, boundaries, evidence standard, and note path.

## 3. Research and close gaps

Wait for all assignments, then inspect every note for source quality, missing citations, contradictions, and unfilled sections. Delegate targeted follow-ups rather than silently filling gaps. Preserve conflicting credible evidence for synthesis.

Completion criterion: every approved section has adequate primary or authoritative support, or an explicit documented limitation.

## 4. Synthesize

Delegate the report to a fresh writer with the approved question, outline, all note paths, and final path. Require citations near claims, explicit conflict handling, limitations, and a source list. The report must be synthesis, not pasted notes.

Review the output against the coverage map. Send specific defects back to the writer or a researcher and repeat until every section is supported and the report satisfies the agreed success criteria.

## 5. Deliver

Return the report path, a concise summary of conclusions, important uncertainties, and the source count. Keep `research_notes/` unless the user asks to remove it. Do not present the report as complete while a cited claim is unsupported, a credible conflict is hidden, or an approved section is missing.