Deep Research
Conduct multi-source research — search across sources, synthesize findings, and produce structured, cited reports.
Usage Template
Prompt
Use deep-research on this question. Define scope, gather multiple sources, compare evidence, and produce a cited synthesis with confidence levels.Use Case
- Answering a decision-relevant question where freshness, evidence quality, or competing claims matter.
Expected Result
- The agent returns a sourced report with key findings, disagreements, confidence ratings, and recommended next steps.
Output Example
- An evidence table, synthesis summary, confidence levels, open questions, and action recommendation.
Verification Case
- Claims are tied to sources, dates are explicit when relevant, and uncertainty is separated from conclusions.
Verified Effect
- A broad research question becomes a sourced synthesis with confidence levels and decision-relevant gaps.
When to Use
- User says "research X for me" or "deep dive into X"
- User needs a comprehensive overview of a topic
- Comparing multiple viewpoints or sources
- Before making a significant decision that requires evidence
Workflow
Phase 1: Scope Definition
BEFORE searching, define:
1. Core question: What exactly are we researching?
2. Confidence target: Casual overview vs. authoritative reference?
3. Depth: 3 sources (quick) | 10 sources (standard) | 20+ sources (deep)
4. Constraints: Recent only? Specific domains? Specific languages?Phase 2: Multi-Source Collection
Collect sources across different types for balanced coverage:
| Type | Purpose | |------|---------| | Primary sources | Original research, official docs | | Expert commentary | Analysis and interpretation | | Contrarian views | Challenge assumptions | | Data/evidence | Quantitative support |
For each source captured:
- Extract key claims with source attribution
- Note confidence level and potential bias
- Flag contradictions between sources
Phase 3: Synthesis
Organize findings into a structured synthesis:
1. Executive Summary — 3 bullet points max
2. Key Findings — what the evidence says
3. Points of Agreement — where sources converge
4. Points of Disagreement — where sources diverge
5. Gaps — what isn't known or is uncertain
6. Sources — full list with citationsPhase 4: Output
Write the research output with:
- Clear attribution for each claim
(Source: [[source]]) - Confidence markers (high/medium/low) for each finding
- Recommendation or next steps
Research Quality Standards
| Confidence | Evidence Required | |-----------|------------------| | High | ≥3 independent sources, or 1 authoritative primary source | | Medium | 2 sources, or 1 source with reasonable authority | | Low | 1 source, unverified claim | | Speculative | No source — clearly marked as inference |
Quality Gates
- [ ] Research scope defined before collection
- [ ] ≥3 sources collected (or specified depth)
- [ ] Contradictions flagged
- [ ] Each finding has confidence marker
- [ ] Output saved to wiki outputs/
- [ ] Sources list complete with citations