n4m3z/ResearchTopic

ResearchTopic

Single-pass parallel web research. Decompose, fan out, synthesize. Not a council — no rounds, no debate. The goal is a structured answer with citations and explicit confidence levels, returned in one cycle.

For multi-perspective research where specialists challenge each other across rounds, use ResearchCouncil.

Step 1: Decompose

Break the research question into 3-5 sub-queries covering different angles. Examples:

| Original | Sub-queries | | ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "best practices for tool X" | Official docs · GitHub issues + discussions · YouTube/Twitter creators using it · Reddit threads · Alternatives | | "is library X production-ready" | Maintainer activity · Open critical issues · Production case studies · Recent security advisories | | "landscape for AI code review tools" | Vendor offerings · Open-source TUI · Editor plugins · IDE-native features · Recent benchmarks |

Decomposition is the highest-leverage step — a sloppy query becomes a confused report. Name the angles before spawning.

Step 2: Spawn parallel WebResearcher agents

For each sub-query, spawn a WebResearcher via the Task tool in a single message so they run in parallel. Each prompt includes the sub-question, brief context of the parent goal, an explicit ask for citations + confidence level, and a cap (~300 words per agent).

Step 3: Synthesize

Combine the agent reports into one structured output. Don't paste raw reports — synthesize:

## Research: <topic>

### Summary
One paragraph covering the load-bearing findings.

### Findings
1. **<finding>** — confidence: established | likely | uncertain. <One-sentence justification.> [source][1]
2. ...

### Conflicts
Where sources disagree, flag the disagreement and which side has more credibility.

### Gaps
What couldn't be determined; what would need primary-source access.

### What this means for you
(Only if the research was triggered by a decision question.) Concrete next steps.

### Sources
[1]: <url> "title"

Red Flags

| Thought | Reality | | ---------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "I'll just search directly without spawning agents" | Parallel fan-out is why this skill exists; in-context serial searches eat the context window. | | "Top search results are good enough" | Vendor blogs, AI-summary spam, out-of-date posts rank well. Evaluate authority + recency. | | "Paste the agent reports verbatim" | Synthesize. One structured answer, not N raw reports. | | "If only one source says X, drop it" | Often the most valuable signal. Flag as low-confidence, don't drop. | | "Skip Conflicts if all sources agree" | Agreement is itself a finding — write "all sources concur on X" explicitly. |

Constraints

• Every factual claim has a citation; no unsourced assertions
• Confidence levels are explicit (established / likely / uncertain)
• Conflicts get their own section
• "What this means for you" is mandatory for decision-triggered research
• Use the WebResearcher agent for searches; don't reimplement search logic