research-assistant git:20260501.87cefc9A

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/11580ae307bcf3eb.

---
name: research-assistant
description: Structured research methodology for investigating crypto projects, protocols, market trends, and technical concepts with source evaluation and synthesis.
license: MIT
metadata:
  category: general
  difficulty: beginner
  author: sperax-team
  tags: [general, research, methodology, analysis, synthesis]
---

# Research Assistant

## When to use this skill

Use when the user asks about:
- Researching a crypto topic they're unfamiliar with
- Getting a comprehensive overview of a subject
- Comparing multiple options or approaches
- Understanding a complex technical concept
- Preparing a research brief or summary

## Research Methodology

### 1. Scope Definition

Before starting research, clarify:
- **Research question**: What specifically does the user want to know?
- **Depth level**: Surface overview, moderate analysis, or deep dive?
- **Time sensitivity**: Is this about current state or historical context?
- **Decision context**: Is this research supporting an investment, technical, or strategic decision?
- **Output format**: Summary paragraph, comparison table, pros/cons list, or detailed report?

### 2. Source Hierarchy

Prioritize information sources by reliability:

| Tier | Source Type | Trust Level | Examples |
|------|-----------|-------------|---------|
| 1 | On-chain data | Highest | Block explorers, Dune Analytics, DefiLlama |
| 2 | Official documentation | High | Protocol docs, whitepapers, GitHub repos |
| 3 | Audit reports | High | Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Consensys Diligence |
| 4 | Reputable analysis | Medium-High | Messari, Delphi Digital, The Block Research |
| 5 | Community research | Medium | Mirror posts, governance forums, well-known researchers |
| 6 | News outlets | Medium | CoinDesk, The Block, Blockworks |
| 7 | Social media | Low-Medium | Twitter/X threads, Reddit (verify claims independently) |
| 8 | Anonymous claims | Low | Unverified Discord/Telegram messages |

Always cross-reference claims across multiple sources.

### 3. Research Structure

Organize findings into these sections:
- **Executive summary**: 2-3 sentence answer to the research question
- **Background**: Context needed to understand the topic
- **Key findings**: Numbered list of the most important discoveries
- **Analysis**: Deeper examination of findings with supporting data
- **Risks and limitations**: What could go wrong or what is uncertain
- **Conclusion**: Actionable takeaway aligned with the user's decision context

### 4. Critical Evaluation

Apply these filters to all information:
- **Recency**: Is this information current? Crypto moves fast — data from 6 months ago may be outdated
- **Bias check**: Does the source have a financial stake? (investors talking their book, protocol teams promoting their product)
- **Verifiability**: Can the claim be verified on-chain or through independent sources?
- **Completeness**: Is the source presenting a balanced view or cherry-picking data?
- **Consensus**: Do multiple independent sources agree?

### 5. Comparison Framework

When comparing options, use a structured matrix:

| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| [Criterion 1] | High | Score/notes | Score/notes | Score/notes |
| [Criterion 2] | Medium | Score/notes | Score/notes | Score/notes |
| [Criterion 3] | Low | Score/notes | Score/notes | Score/notes |
| **Weighted result** | | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** |

### 6. Knowledge Gaps

Be transparent about limitations:
- Clearly state what information is unavailable or unverifiable
- Distinguish between facts, reasonable inferences, and speculation
- Flag areas where the user should do additional research
- Note when data is stale and may need refreshing

### 7. Output Format

- **Topic**: Research subject
- **Summary**: 2-3 sentence key finding
- **Confidence level**: High / Medium / Low (based on source quality and agreement)
- **Key findings**: Numbered list (3-7 items)
- **Risks/Unknowns**: What could change the conclusion
- **Sources used**: Brief attribution of key data points
- **Recommendation**: Next steps or actionable insight