research（研究）

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:

export TAVILY_API_KEY="your-key-here"

Create an alias for convenience (add to your shell profile):

# Adjust path to where this skill is installed
alias tavily='deno run --allow-net --allow-env /path/to/skills/research/scripts/tavily-cli.ts'

Or run directly:

deno run --allow-net --allow-env ./scripts/tavily-cli.ts "your query"

Commands below use tavily assuming the alias is configured.

Quick Reference

Common Commands

# Basic search
tavily "your query"

# With AI answer summary
tavily "your query" --answer

# Deep search with more results
tavily "your query" --depth advanced --results 10 --answer

# News/recent content
tavily "your query" --topic news --time week

# Exclude familiar sources to find new perspectives
tavily "your query" --exclude wikipedia.org,reddit.com

Phase Summary

Scope → Tavily Depth

Phase 0: Analysis

Goal: Structure topic before searching. Prevents unfocused searches and scope mismatch.

Scope Calibration

Before searching, assess stakes:

Analysis Template

# Research Analysis: [Topic]

## Core Concepts
- **Primary terms:** [Key terms requiring definition]
- **Terminology variants:** [Synonyms, jargon, historical terms]
- **Ambiguous terms:** [Terms with multiple meanings]

## Stakeholders
- **Primary actors:** [Who is directly involved?]
- **Affected groups:** [Who bears consequences?]
- **Opposing interests:** [Who benefits from different outcomes?]

## Temporal Scope
- **Historical origins:** [When did this begin?]
- **Key transitions:** [What changed and when?]
- **Current state:** [What's happening now?]

## Domains
- **Primary field:** [Main discipline]
- **Adjacent fields:** [Related disciplines]

## Controversies
- **Active debates:** [What's contested?]
- **Competing frameworks:** [Different ways of understanding]

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

Vocabulary Discovery Process

1. Run initial terminology search: tavily "[topic] terminology" --answer --results 5
2. From results, note:

- Expert terms (technical vocabulary) - Outsider terms (popular/introductory language) - Cross-domain equivalents

1. Update vocabulary map (template below)
2. Re-run searches with expert terms: tavily "[expert-term]" --answer
3. Compare result quality - expert terms should surface deeper content

Vocabulary Map Template

## Core Terms
| Term | Domain | Depth Level |
|------|--------|-------------|
| [expert term] | [field] | Expert |
| [outsider term] | General | Introductory |

## Cross-Domain Synonyms
| Concept | Terms by Domain |
|---------|-----------------|
| [concept] | Field A: [term], Field B: [term] |

## Depth Indicators
| Level | Terms | What They Surface |
|-------|-------|-------------------|
| Introductory | [terms] | Overviews, explainers |
| Expert | [terms] | Research, nuanced analysis |

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

Source Type Selection

Foundational Search Process

1. Start with expert terminology from Phase 1
2. Run foundational queries: # Definition/overview tavily "[expert-term] comprehensive overview" --answer --depth advanced # Key perspectives tavily "[expert-term] major approaches" --answer --results 7
3. For each major perspective found, get 2-3 authoritative sources: tavily "[perspective-name] [expert-term]" --answer --results 5
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

Counter-Perspective Process

1. Identify your current understanding/lean
2. Search for strongest counterargument: tavily "[topic] strongest argument against" --answer --depth advanced
3. Exclude sources you've already seen: tavily "[topic]" --exclude [domains-already-searched]
4. Search for failure modes: tavily "[topic] when fails problems limitations" --answer
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

Synthesis Template

## Summary
[Direct answer to question]

## Confidence Level
[High/Medium/Low] - [Justification]

## Key Findings
1. [Finding with source type]

## Perspectives
| Perspective | Key Argument | Source Quality |
|-------------|--------------|----------------|
| [view] | [argument] | [assessment] |

## Counter-Evidence
- [What argues against the main conclusion]

## Caveats
- [What wasn't consulted]
- [What assumptions were made]

## For Deeper Investigation
[What would increase confidence]

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

tavily "search query" [options]

Options

Scenario → Command Mapping

Diagnostic States

Use these to identify where research is stuck and which phase to revisit.

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

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

1. Store the user's preference

What to Store

File Naming

Pattern: {topic}-research-{date}.md Example: competency-frameworks-research-2025-01-15.md

Integration Points

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