Research Documentation Skill

This skill provides guidelines for creating research documentation - investigative findings and discovery results.

Purpose

Research documentation captures findings from investigations - what was discovered, how it was discovered, and what it means. Users consult it to understand past research and build on existing knowledge.

User Need

"What did we learn about X?"

Characteristics

Target Directory

Place research documentation in: docs/research/findings/

Writing Guidelines

DO

• •State the research question clearly
• •Document methodology transparently
• •Provide evidence for each finding
• •Include confidence levels
• •Acknowledge limitations
• •Make actionable recommendations
• •Date-stamp for temporal context

DON'T

• •Present opinions as facts
• •Skip the methodology section
• •Omit limitations or gaps
• •Make recommendations without evidence
• •Assume findings are permanent (they may become outdated)

Examples of Good Research Docs

• •"Authentication Flow Analysis"
• •"Performance Bottleneck Investigation"
• •"Third-Party API Capabilities Research"
• •"Security Vulnerability Assessment"
• •"Technology Comparison Study"

Template

Use this template when documenting research findings:

# [Topic] Research

*Research date: [YYYY-MM-DD]*
*Researcher: [Name/Agent]*
*Confidence: [High | Medium | Low]*

## Summary

[2-3 sentences summarizing the key findings]

## Background

[Why this research was conducted - what question were we trying to answer?]

## Methodology

[How the research was conducted]

- [Method 1 - e.g., Code analysis of repository X]
- [Method 2 - e.g., API testing with tool Y]
- [Method 3 - e.g., Documentation review]

## Findings

### Finding 1: [Title]

[Detailed description of what was discovered]

**Evidence:**

[Code, logs, or data supporting this finding]

### Finding 2: [Title]

[Detailed description]

**Evidence:**

[Supporting data]

### Finding 3: [Title]

[Detailed description]

## Analysis

[Interpretation of the findings - what do they mean?]

## Limitations

- [What we couldn't verify or access]
- [Assumptions made]
- [Potential gaps in the research]

## Recommendations

Based on these findings:

1. [Actionable recommendation]
2. [Actionable recommendation]
3. [Actionable recommendation]

## Next Steps

- [ ] [Follow-up action 1]
- [ ] [Follow-up action 2]

## References

- [Link to relevant documentation]
- [Link to source code analyzed]
- [Link to related research]

---

*This research may become outdated. Verify findings before making critical decisions.*

Quality Checklist

Apply this checklist before finalizing any research documentation.

Research Question

• • Research question/goal is clearly stated
• • Background explains why research was needed
• • Scope is defined

Methodology

• • Methods are documented transparently
• • Tools and techniques are specified
• • Process is reproducible

Findings

• • Each finding is clearly stated
• • Evidence supports each finding
• • Confidence level is appropriate
• • Findings answer the research question

Analysis

• • Interpretation is logical
• • Analysis follows from evidence
• • Alternative explanations considered

Limitations

• • Gaps are acknowledged
• • Assumptions are stated
• • Scope limitations are clear

Recommendations

• • Recommendations are actionable
• • Recommendations follow from findings
• • Next steps are clear

Temporal Context

• • Date-stamped
• • Time-sensitive findings are marked
• • Outdating risk is acknowledged

Formatting

• • Consistent heading structure
• • Evidence is properly formatted
• • Links are functional
• • No broken references