Report Findings

Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.

<when_to_use>

• •Synthesizing research from multiple sources
• •Presenting findings with proper attribution
• •Comparing options with structured analysis
• •Assessing source credibility
• •Documenting research conclusions

NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions

</when_to_use>

<source_authority>

See source-tiers.md for detailed assessment criteria.

</source_authority>

<cross_referencing>

Two-Source Minimum

Never rely on single source for critical claims:

1. •Find claim in initial source
2. •Seek confirmation in independent source
3. •If sources conflict → investigate further
4. •If sources agree → moderate confidence
5. •If 3+ sources agree → high confidence

Conflict Resolution

When sources disagree:

1. •Check dates — newer information often supersedes
2. •Compare authority — higher tier beats lower tier
3. •Verify context — might both be right in different scenarios
4. •Test empirically — verify through direct observation if possible
5. •Document uncertainty — flag if unresolved

Triangulation

For complex questions, seek alignment across:

• •Official sources — what should happen
• •Direct evidence — what actually happens
• •Community reports — what people experience

All three align → high confidence. Mismatches → investigate the gap.

</cross_referencing>

<comparison_analysis>

Three comparison methods:

See comparison-methods.md for templates and examples.

</comparison_analysis>

<synthesis_techniques>

Extract Themes

Across sources, identify:

• •Consensus — what everyone agrees on
• •Disagreements — where opinions differ
• •Edge cases — nuanced situations

Present Findings

1. •Main answer — clear, actionable
2. •Supporting evidence — cite 2-3 strongest sources
3. •Caveats — limitations, context-specific notes
4. •Alternatives — other valid approaches

</synthesis_techniques>

<confidence_calibration>

Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.

</confidence_calibration>

<output_format>

Standard report structure:

## Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer }

## Key Findings
1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}

## Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }

## Confidence Assessment
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%

## Sources
- [Source](url) — tier {N}

## Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }

See output-template.md for full template with guidelines.

</output_format>

ALWAYS:

• •Assess source authority before citing
• •Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
• •Include confidence levels with findings
• •Cite sources with proper attribution
• •Flag uncertainties

NEVER:

• •Cite single source for critical claims
• •Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
• •Skip confidence calibration
• •Hide conflicting sources
• •Omit caveats when uncertainty exists

• •source-tiers.md — detailed authority assessment
• •comparison-methods.md — comparison templates
• •output-template.md — full report structure

Research vs Report-Findings:

• •research skill covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
• •This skill (report-findings) covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation

Load this skill during research synthesis stage, or standalone for any task requiring multi-source synthesis with proper attribution.