Academic Research Creation

Creates research and technology evaluation documents in the Academic vault.

Vault Location

The active vault is specified by the user context (typically an absolute path). Research documents are stored in $VAULT_ROOT/Research/.

Critical Rules

1. •Never modify the vault without user confirmation
2. •Objective Evaluation: Present findings without bias toward any candidate
3. •No Placeholder Content: Never use FILL, TODO, or {{placeholder}}
4. •Only Link to Existing Documents: In Related section, only link to documents that exist
5. •Verify Wikilinks: After creation, list all [[...]] and confirm targets exist

When to Create

• •Investigating a new technology
• •Comparing alternatives before adoption
• •A post references research that does not exist
• •Making a technology decision that needs documentation

Prompt Template

Type /create-research to use the template in the Lithos prompts/ directory.

Filename Format

Research/{Topic-Name}.md

Example: Research/Emacs-Swift-Research.md, Research/Substrate.md

Frontmatter Schema

Crucial: Titles must be wrapped in single quotes if they contain double quotes or special characters.

---
title: 'Research Topic'    # Use quotes
description: 'One-line summary' # Mandatory: Move first sentence here
tags:                      # Domain tags
  - editor
  - frontend
status: exploration | evaluation | concluded
started: YYYY-MM-DD
concluded: YYYY-MM-DD      # Optional, when finished
outcome: adopted | rejected | deferred
order: number              # Mandatory sorting order
icon: i-lucide-*           # Mandatory icon
navigation:
  icon: i-lucide-*         # Mandatory navigation icon
---

Status Meanings

Outcome Meanings

Document Structure

Note: Do not include an H1 title or the description at the top of the body. The frontmatter title and description are used by Lithos.

## Motivation

{Why are we investigating this? What problem would it solve?}

## Scope

{What are we evaluating? Define boundaries.}

### Questions to Answer

1. {Question 1}
2. {Question 2}
3. {Question 3}

### Out of Scope

- {What we're explicitly not investigating}

## Candidates

### {Candidate 1}

**Overview:** {Brief description}

**Pros:**
- {advantage}
- {advantage}

**Cons:**
- {disadvantage}
- {disadvantage}

**Resources:**
- [Documentation]({url})
- [Repository]({url})

### {Candidate 2}

{Same structure}

## Evaluation Criteria

| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| {criterion} | high/medium/low | {description} |

## Findings

### {Finding 1}

{Detailed findings with evidence, benchmarks, or proof-of-concept results.}

## Recommendation

**Decision:** {adopted | rejected | deferred}

**Rationale:** {Clear explanation of the decision}

## Next Steps

- [ ] {Action item if adopted}
- [ ] {Follow-up action}

## Related

- [[Project/{project this feeds into}]] (only if exists)
- [[Research/{related research}]] (only if exists)

## References

1. [{Name}]({url}) - {brief description}

Workflow

1. •Identify the decision being evaluated
2. •List all candidates being considered
3. •Define clear evaluation criteria with weights
4. •Research each candidate:
   • •Official documentation
   • •Community feedback
   • •Benchmarks if available
   • •Proof of concept if needed
5. •Document findings objectively
6. •Provide clear recommendation with rationale
7. •For Related section: verify each target exists before linking
8. •Present the file to the user for confirmation

Research Commands

Use the brave-search skill to gather information:

# Search for documentation
brave-search "{technology} documentation"

# Search for comparisons
brave-search "{technology A} vs {technology B}"

# Search for benchmarks
brave-search "{technology} performance benchmark"

Writing Style

• •Objective: Present facts, not opinions
• •First Person: Use "I" for motivation and recommendations ("I recommend...")
• •Evidence-based: Support claims with sources
• •Balanced: Fair treatment of all candidates
• •Actionable: Clear recommendation and next steps