Researching Skill
Use when the how is unclear; output is a chosen approach with evidence.
Prerequisites: If what/why is unclear, use discovering skill first.
Quick Reference
| Track | When | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Fast (default) | Standard decisions | Brief: problem, decision, risks |
| Full | API/security/multi-subsystem | Research brief + optional design doc |
When to Use
- •Requirements are fuzzy or incomplete
- •Multiple plausible approaches exist (spike, proof of concept needed)
- •Change affects architecture, API, data, or security
Skip if: obvious bug, trivial change, pattern already exists.
Fast vs Full Track
code
Is it high-risk?
├── No → Fast Track (default)
└── Yes → Full Track
├── Changes public API
├── Security/data implications
├── Team disagreement
└── Touches multiple subsystems
Core Rule
Evidence before opinions. Never recommend anything until facts are gathered: what already exists in code, which constraints are real, what decisions were made before. If evidence is missing — label it as assumption and lower confidence.
Quick Rules
- •One question at a time while clarifying requirements
- •If multiple interpretations exist, clarify before researching
- •State assumptions explicitly with confidence (H/M/L)
When to Ask vs Act
Ask (one question at a time; prefer multiple choice) if:
- •Multiple interpretations
- •Critical context missing
- •Answer would change direction
Act (state assumptions + confidence) if:
- •Default interpretation is clear
- •Request is specific
- •Assumptions are easy to verify
Workflow
Fast Track (default)
- •Clarify & Frame — purpose, constraints, success criteria
- •Collect Signals — code, docs, history
- •Options + Decision — 2-3 options, pick one
- •Brief — Problem (1-2 sentences), Decision, Key Risks (1-3 bullets)
Full Track
| Phase | Focus | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0. Frame | Problem, non-goals, success criteria | Constraints |
| 1. Signals | Code, docs, history | Current state + assumptions |
| 2. Options | 2-4 approaches with trade-offs | Comparison |
| 3. Evaluate | Decide using Phase 0 criteria | Recommendation + fallback plan |
| 4. Artifacts | Research brief (always) | Optional: design doc |
Research Brief template: Problem & Context → Constraints → Current State → Options Compared → Recommendation → Risks
Stop Conditions
Stop research when:
- •Decision criteria are satisfied
- •Remaining unknowns won't change the decision
- •Next step is prototype/measurement
Best Practices
- •Assumptions + Confidence — label assumptions (H/M/L), propose quick validation
- •Spike as Research — 30-90 min spike with clear question and success metric
- •Checkpoints (Full Track) — after each phase: "Constraints complete? Which risks matter?"
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Recommend without evidence | Gather facts first, then opinions |
| Single option, no alternatives | Always 2-3 options with trade-offs |
| Drift into tangential topics | Stay connected to problem statement |
| Hide uncertainty behind confidence | State unknowns explicitly |
| Finalize with disputed framing | Resolve framing first |