Skip to main content
Produces a structured, evidence-based research brief by searching broadly across angles, explicitly seeking counterevidence, and synthesising findings into a scannable document with inline citations. Every claim in the brief links to a URL retrieved by a web search in the session — no training-data citations. Use this skill when the user asks to research, summarise, or brief a topic — including “what do we know about”, “give me a brief on”, “background on”, “landscape analysis”, “due diligence on”, or “deep dive into”.

Invocation

/research-brief [topic or question]

Output format

The brief is delivered directly in the conversation as markdown with these sections:
  • Executive Summary — 2–4 sentences, scannable in under 30 seconds
  • Key Findings — 5–10 numbered items, each with an inline citation and an implication statement
  • Gaps and Risks — at least 2 items; mandatory even if no risks surface
  • Recommended Next Steps — 3–5 specific and actionable items
  • Sources — every URL cited in the brief

Workflow

1

Clarify scope

Narrow the vague topic to a specific research question. If unclear, ask one clarifying question before proceeding. Do not ask multiple questions.
2

Search broadly

Run 3–5 web searches covering different angles:
  • Definition and background
  • Recent developments
  • Key players and organisations
  • Use cases and adoption
  • Data, metrics, and benchmarks
3

Search for counterevidence

Run at least one search explicitly targeting “[topic] problems”, “[topic] failures”, or “[topic] criticism”.
A brief with no risks found is incomplete, not thorough. If no risks surface, state that explicitly in the Gaps and Risks section and explain why — but never omit the section.
4

Read the sources

Review the content returned by each search. For each result, note the claim, its source URL, and its implication for the research question.
5

Synthesise

Identify patterns, conflicts, and gaps across all sources. Note what is well-evidenced, contested, or missing. Each finding must state what the evidence means for the research question — not merely restate what the source says.
6

Write the brief

Produce the brief in the standard output format. Deliver directly in the conversation as markdown.
7

Self-review

Verify every claim in Key Findings has an inline citation. Verify Executive Summary is 4 sentences or fewer. Fix any violations before delivering.

Self-review checklist

Before delivering, verify all of the following:
  • Executive Summary is exactly 2–4 sentences — no more
  • Key Findings contains 5–10 numbered items
  • Every Key Finding has an inline citation in the form [source name](url)
  • Every citation URL was actually returned by a web search in this session
  • At least one web search covered criticisms, failures, or risks of the topic
  • Gaps and Risks section present with at least 2 items
  • Recommended Next Steps contains 3–5 specific and actionable items
  • Sources section lists every URL cited in the brief
  • No finding is a bare fact — each states an implication (“X is true, which means Y”)

Golden rules

Every item in Key Findings must have an inline citation linking to a URL returned by web search in this session. Never assert a claim without a citation.
Run at least one search explicitly targeting problems, failures, or criticism. A brief with no risks found is incomplete.
If it runs longer, cut it. The summary must be scannable in under 30 seconds.
Only cite sources whose content was returned by a web search tool call in this session. Never cite from memory or training data.
Each finding must state what the evidence means for the research question, not merely restate what the source says.
A brief without this section is not complete. If no risks surface, state that explicitly and explain why — but never omit the section.

Reference files

FileContents
FORMAT.mdComplete brief template, section-by-section writing guidance, citation format, and example finding structure
SEARCH.mdSearch strategy: how to choose queries, how many to run, how to cover counterevidence, and how to handle conflicting sources