tmchow/iterative:research

Research

Research open questions from a PRD or a user-provided set of questions. Categorize each question, spawn parallel research subagents for investigatable items, synthesize findings, and update the PRD.

This skill resolves unknowns where the answer exists somewhere and needs to be found — prior art, external constraints, codebase patterns, competitive landscape. For unknowns about visual design, UX, or interaction feel, use iterative:design-exploration instead.

When to Use

• After iterative:brainstorming produces a PRD with open questions that can be answered through research
• When the user has specific questions to investigate before planning
• When scope, requirements, or direction questions need answers before tech planning can proceed
• Can be invoked standalone with a list of questions (no PRD required)

Key Principles

1. Categorize before investigating — Not all questions belong here. Technical implementation questions (how to query X, which API to use) belong in tech planning's codebase exploration. Questions about visual design or interaction feel belong in iterative:design-exploration. This skill handles scope, requirements, external research, and prior art questions.
2. Parallel research — Spawn independent research subagents for each question. Questions are typically unrelated and benefit from concurrent investigation.
3. Update the source of truth — When a PRD exists, findings should update it directly. Answered questions move out of Open Questions; new constraints become requirements.
4. Present before committing — Show findings and proposed PRD changes to the user for approval before updating the document.

Workflow

Phase 1: Gather Questions

1. If invoked with a PRD path: Read the PRD's Open Questions section. Extract all tagged questions.
2. If invoked with user-provided questions: Use the questions as provided.
3. If no input: Ask the user for either a PRD path or a set of questions.

Phase 2: Categorize

For each question, assess whether it can be investigated now or should be handled differently:

| Category | Action | Examples | |----------|--------|----------| | Scope / Requirements | Investigate now | "Do users need offline support?" / "Should this handle bulk operations?" | | External research | Investigate now | "What do competitors do for this?" / "Are there regulatory constraints?" | | Prior art / Patterns | Investigate now | "How do similar tools handle this?" / "What's the standard approach?" | | Needs design exploration | Suggest iterative:design-exploration | "How should the drag interaction feel?" / "Would users find this flow intuitive?" | | Technical implementation | Defer to tech planning | "Which database index strategy?" / "How does the existing auth middleware work?" | | User decision needed | Flag for user | "Should we support both formats?" / "What's the priority between X and Y?" |

The distinction between research and design exploration: Can the answer be found, or does it need to be seen and experienced? If the question is about how something should feel, look, or behave in practice — that's design exploration, not research.

Present the categorization to the user. They may recategorize or add questions.

Phase 3: Investigate

1. For each investigatable question, spawn an independent general-purpose subagent. Each subagent receives:
   • The question
   • Relevant context from the PRD (if exists)
   • Research scope (web search, codebase exploration, documentation review — as appropriate)
   • Instruction to return findings as: what was learned, confidence level, and how it affects the PRD (if applicable)
2. Run subagents in parallel — questions are independent. Independent subagents are the right pattern here.
3. Collect findings from all subagents.
4. If a subagent finds nothing useful: note it as unresolved and carry the question forward.

Phase 4: Synthesize and Update

1. Present findings to the user, organized by question:
   • What was found
   • How it affects the PRD (new requirement, scope change, question resolved, question remains open)
2. If a PRD exists, propose updates:
   • Questions answered → remove from Open Questions
   • New constraints discovered → add to Requirements (note they were discovered during research)
   • Scope implications → update Scope / Boundaries
3. Get user approval before making any PRD changes.
4. Apply approved changes to the PRD document. Commit the updated PRD.

Phase 5: Handoff

1. Summarize: what was resolved, what remains open, what was deferred to tech planning, what was suggested for design exploration.
2. If invoked from brainstorming workflow: return to brainstorming's Phase 5 transition (brainstorming presents the next set of options).
3. If invoked standalone: present options (see Transition Points).

When Things Go Wrong

• No results found for a question: Mark it as unresolved. Carry it forward to tech planning or flag it for the user as needing a decision.
• All questions are "User decision needed": Nothing to investigate. Present the decisions to the user directly and skip Phase 3.
• All questions need design exploration: Nothing to research. Suggest invoking iterative:design-exploration instead and skip Phase 3.
• PRD has no Open Questions section: If invoked with a PRD path but no Open Questions, report this and ask the user if they have questions to investigate or if the PRD is ready for tech planning.
• User rejects all proposed PRD changes: Findings are still valuable context. Summarize what was learned even if the PRD isn't updated.

Transition Points

Always present options to the user at transition points using the platform's interactive question tool — AskUserQuestion (Claude Code) or request_user_input (Codex). Never print options as text or end the turn without presenting a choice.

After research completes, when invoked standalone, present options:

• Continue to technical planning
• Research more questions
• I'll take it from here (exit)

When invoked from brainstorming: return to brainstorming's transition (brainstorming presents its own options).

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern | Better Approach | |--------------|-----------------| | Investigating technical implementation questions | Defer to tech planning — those need codebase context | | Researching questions that need to be experienced | Suggest iterative:design-exploration — research can't answer "how should this feel?" | | Making PRD changes without user approval | Present findings and proposed changes first | | Sequential research when questions are independent | Spawn parallel subagents | | Leaving answered questions in Open Questions | Clean up — move resolved items out, update affected sections | | Investigating when the answer requires a user decision | Flag it — present the decision to the user instead of researching |