Diagnose research quality and guide systematic query expansion. Use when starting research on any topic, when stuck in research, or when unsure if research is complete.

Research Skill Tool assisted research with Tavily integration. Transforms basic questions into comprehensive search strategies using AI optimized web search. Setup This skill includes a bundled Tavily CLI script at scripts/tavily cli.ts . Requirements 1. Deno Install from https://deno.land 2. Tavily API Key Get one at https://tavily.com (free tier available) Configuration Set your API key: Create an alias for convenience (add to your shell profile): Or run directly: Commands below use tavily assuming the alias is configured. Quick Reference Common Commands Phase Summary Phase Type Purpose 0 Manual Analyze topic, set scope 1 Tavily Discover expert terminology 2 Tavily Foundational search 3 Tavily Counter perspectives 4 Manual Synthesize findings Scope → Tavily Depth Decision Stakes Tavily Settings Low, reversible depth basic results 3 Moderate depth basic results 5 answer High, irreversible depth advanced results 10 answer Phase 0: Analysis Goal : Structure topic before searching. Prevents unfocused searches and scope mismatch. Scope Calibration Before searching, assess stakes: Decision Type Confidence Needed Research Depth Reversible, low stakes 60 70% Quick scan (minutes) Reversible, moderate 75 85% Working knowledge Irreversible, moderate 85 90% Solid grounding Irreversible, high 90 95% Deep expertise Analysis Template Phase 0 Checklist [ ] Identified primary terms [ ] Listed potential stakeholders [ ] Assessed decision stakes [ ] Determined appropriate research depth Phase 1: Vocabulary Discovery Goal : Discover expert terminology to unlock deeper search results. Why Vocabulary Matters Outsider terms → introductory material Expert terms → research, nuanced analysis Cross domain terms → bridge bodies of work Tavily Commands for Vocabulary Discovery Discovery Need Command Expert terminology tavily "[topic] terminology experts" answer Academic terms tavily "[topic] academic research terminology" answer Cross domain synonyms tavily "[topic] also known as called" answer Historical terms tavily "[topic] history original term" answer Vocabulary Discovery Process 1. Run initial terminology search: 2. From results, note: Expert terms (technical vocabulary) Outsider terms (popular/introductory language) Cross domain equivalents 3. Update vocabulary map (template below) 4. Re run searches with expert terms: 5. Compare result quality expert terms should surface deeper content Vocabulary Map Template Phase 1 Checklist [ ] Ran terminology discovery search [ ] Identified expert vs. outsider terms [ ] Mapped cross domain synonyms [ ] Created vocabulary map Phase 2: Foundational Search Goal : Build foundational understanding with authoritative sources. Question Pattern → Tavily Command Question Pattern Strategy Command "What is X?" Consensus from authorities tavily "[expert term] definition" answer depth advanced "Should I X?" Pros/cons, alternatives tavily "[expert term] pros cons comparison" answer "Is X true?" Evidence, counter evidence tavily "[claim] evidence research" answer depth advanced "How do I X?" Step by step, pitfalls tavily "[expert term] guide tutorial" answer Historical context Origins and evolution tavily "[topic] history origins development" answer Source Type Selection Source Type Best For Tavily Approach Academic/Research Mechanism, causation depth advanced results 10 Practitioner content How things work, edge cases topic general answer News/Current Recent developments topic news time week Official docs Technical specs, policy include [official domain] Foundational Search Process 1. Start with expert terminology from Phase 1 2. Run foundational queries: 3. For each major perspective found, get 2 3 authoritative sources: 4. Track sources in research notes Phase 2 Checklist [ ] Used expert terminology from Phase 1 [ ] Searched for foundational overview [ ] Identified 2 3 major perspectives [ ] Found authoritative sources per perspective [ ] Tracked sources Phase 3: Counter Perspective Search Goal : Explicitly find opposing viewpoints to avoid confirmation bias. Why Counter Perspectives Matter Single perspective research: All sources support one viewpoint Missing counterarguments Echo chamber risk Tavily Commands for Counter Perspectives Need Command General criticism tavily "[topic] criticism problems" answer Opposing viewpoint tavily "[topic] skeptics critique" answer Alternative approaches tavily "[topic] alternatives instead of" answer Failure cases tavily "[topic] failures when wrong" answer Avoid echo chamber tavily "[topic] debate" exclude [familiar sources] Counter Perspective Process 1. Identify your current understanding/lean 2. Search for strongest counterargument: 3. Exclude sources you've already seen: 4. Search for failure modes: 5. Document opposing perspectives in research notes Phase 3 Checklist [ ] Identified current understanding/position [ ] Searched for strongest counterargument [ ] Used exclude to find new sources [ ] Searched for limitations/failure cases [ ] Documented opposing perspectives Phase 4: Synthesis Goal : Synthesize findings with explicit confidence markers. Completion Criteria Minimum Viable (Quick Decisions) [ ] Can define core concepts in own words [ ] Know 2 3 major perspectives [ ] Found authoritative source per perspective [ ] Identified known unknowns Working Knowledge (Most Decisions) [ ] Can explain historical context [ ] Understand stakeholder positions [ ] Encountered counterarguments [ ] Checked multiple domains Deep Expertise (High Stakes) [ ] Traced claims to primary sources [ ] Can evaluate competing evidence [ ] Understand knowledge limitations Diminishing Returns Signals Stop when: New sources cite same foundational works (circular) New searches return familiar content (repetitive) Each hour adds less than previous (marginal) Can make decision or take action (sufficient) Confidence Markers Level Phrases to Use Established "X is...", "X works by..." Strong evidence "Evidence strongly suggests..." Moderate evidence "Most sources report..." Limited evidence "One study found..." Unknown "No reliable information found..." Synthesis Template Phase 4 Checklist [ ] Met completion criteria for stakes level [ ] Checked diminishing returns signals [ ] Applied confidence markers [ ] Completed synthesis template [ ] Stored findings for future reference Tavily Command Reference Basic Usage Options Option Description Values answer Include AI generated answer summary flag depth Search depth basic (default), advanced results Number of results 1 20 (default: 5) topic Topic category general (default), news , finance time Time filter day , week , month , year include Only include domains comma separated exclude Exclude domains comma separated raw Include raw page content flag json Output as JSON flag Scenario → Command Mapping Research Scenario Command Quick overview tavily "query" answer Deep dive tavily "query" depth advanced results 10 answer Recent news tavily "query" topic news time week Academic focus tavily "query" depth advanced include scholar.google.com,arxiv.org Avoid Wikipedia tavily "query" exclude wikipedia.org Fresh perspectives tavily "query" exclude [already seen domains] Financial data tavily "query" topic finance answer Raw content for analysis tavily "query" raw json Diagnostic States Use these to identify where research is stuck and which phase to revisit. State Symptom Phase to Revisit R0: No Analysis Searching without structuring topic Phase 0 R1: No Vocabulary Using outsider terms, finding only surface content Phase 1 R2: Single Perspective All sources support one view Phase 3 R3: Domain Blindness Searching only in familiar field Phase 1 (cross domain terms) R4: Recency Bias Only recent sources Phase 2 (historical queries) R5: Breadth Without Depth Many tabs, no synthesis Phase 4 R6: Completion Uncertainty Unsure when to stop Phase 4 (completion criteria) R7: Complete Can explain, identify uncertainties, act Done Quick Diagnostic 1. Can you explain the topic in expert terminology? → If no, Phase 1 2. Have you found opposing viewpoints? → If no, Phase 3 3. Can you state your confidence level with justification? → If no, Phase 4 4. Is your research depth proportional to stakes? → If no, Phase 0 Anti Patterns Pattern Symptom Fix Confirmation Trap Searching to confirm, not learn Phase 3: Search for strongest counterargument Authority Fallacy Accepting claims by source prestige Evaluate evidence, not source Recency Trap Only recent sources Phase 2: Historical context queries Breadth Trap 50 tabs, none read Phase 4: 3 source rule, synthesize before continuing Single Source One source as final answer Require 3 independent sources Jargon Blind Spot Missing other fields' terminology Phase 1: Cross domain vocabulary Infinite Rabbit Hole Lost original purpose Phase 0: Return to scope/stakes Echo Chamber Same sources repeatedly Phase 3: Use exclude flag Output Persistence Output Discovery Before doing any other work: 1. Check for context/output config.md in the project 2. If found, look for this skill's entry 3. If not found or no entry for this skill, ask the user first : "Where should I save output from this research session?" Suggest: explorations/research/ or a sensible location for this project 4. Store the user's preference What to Store Layer Contents Vocabulary Map Terms, domains, depth levels Sources URLs, relevance scores, quality notes Synthesis Summary, confidence, findings, caveats Query Log Tavily commands that worked/failed Gaps What remains unknown File Naming Pattern: {topic} research {date}.md Example: competency frameworks research 2025 01 15.md Integration Points Skill Connection doppelganger Research informs decisions; apply /truth check to findings context networks Store research findings in appropriate network node boundary critique Apply to advice and recommendations encountered Health Check Questions During research, ask: 1. Am I searching to learn or to confirm? 2. What's the strongest argument against my current view? 3. Have I looked outside my familiar domains? 4. Am I using expert or outsider vocabulary? 5. Is my depth proportional to the stakes? 6. Have I stored what I've learned for future use? Source Framework Derived from: references/research framework.md