bosskuai-deep-research · diff
git:20260716.6355db6 to git:20260813.53fd4ac
63 added, 19 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: bosskuai-deep-research
description: Use this skill for in-depth investigation tasks — multi-source research, due diligence, technology evaluation, and evidence synthesis with citations. Produces sourced executive summaries, not strategy.
---
# BosskuAI Deep Research
- Use this skill for in-depth investigation tasks — multi-source research, due diligence, technology evaluation, and evidence synthesis with citations. Produces sourced executive summaries, not strategy.
+ ## When to use
- ## Fast Path
+ - Explicit "research X in depth" or "investigate X" requests
+ - Due diligence on a technology, vendor, or competitor
+ - Technology evaluation requiring current ecosystem data
+ - Multi-source fact-finding before a major product or business decision
+ - Background research to feed `bosskuai-market-analysis`, `bosskuai-investor-prep`, or `bosskuai-competitor-intelligence`
- 1. Confirm the requested outcome and constraints.
- 2. Use the smallest checklist needed; do not load the full playbook by default.
- 3. Produce the artifact, review, or decision in the user-requested format.
- 4. State verification performed and any remaining risk.
+ ## How this differs from nearby skills
- ## When To Open The Playbook
+ - **`bosskuai-market-analysis`**: interprets findings strategically (positioning, TAM, whitespace). Deep research is the investigation engine that feeds it — pure sourced synthesis, not strategy.
+ - **`bosskuai-competitor-intelligence`**: tracks competitors on a repeating cadence with comparison matrices. Deep research is a one-time deep-dive on any topic, not necessarily competitive.
+ - **`bosskuai-search-first`**: a lightweight lookup skill for quick answers. Deep research involves multi-step queries, cross-referencing, and confidence-rated synthesis.
- Open `../../references/playbooks/bosskuai-deep-research-playbook.md` only when the task needs detailed framework choices, longer checklists, examples, or implementation depth.
+ ## MCP requirements
- ## Default Output
+ | Tool | Role | Degradation |
+ |------|------|-------------|
+ | Exa | Web search (required) | Without Exa, fall back to WebSearch/WebFetch and flag reduced coverage |
+ | Firecrawl | Full-page scraping of key sources (optional) | Skip deep-read step; summarise from search snippets instead |
- - Start with the answer or changed recommendation.
- - Use concise bullets for tradeoffs.
- - Avoid generic AI/SaaS phrasing.
- - For implementation work, include exact files, commands, tests, or review notes.
+ ## Workflow
- ## Verification
+ 1. **Understand the research goal** — Restate the exact question in one sentence. Confirm scope: is this a technology review, market sizing, person/company profile, or regulatory landscape? Note the decision this research will inform.
- Before finalizing, check:
+ 2. **Decompose into 3–5 sub-questions** — Break the goal into discrete answerable questions. Example: "Evaluate Temporal.io" → (a) what problem does it solve, (b) adoption and community signal, (c) pricing and licensing, (d) alternatives and trade-offs, (e) known production issues.
- - Did the output solve the actual request?
- - Are assumptions and risks visible?
- - Is there a concrete next action?
- - Did we avoid loading unnecessary specialist context?
+ 3. **Execute multi-source search** — For each sub-question, run at least two independent searches via Exa. Vary query phrasing. Target primary sources (official docs, GitHub, SEC filings, analyst reports) and secondary sources (community forums, review sites, journalism). Log every URL used.
+
+ 4. **Deep-read 3–5 key sources** — Use Firecrawl (or WebFetch) to retrieve full content of the highest-signal pages. Do not rely on search snippets alone for claims you will assert.
+
+ 5. **Cross-reference and verify** — For every material claim, check that at least two independent sources agree or that the primary source is authoritative (official docs, public filings). Flag contradictions explicitly.
+
+ 6. **Synthesize with attribution and confidence** — Write a structured report. Every factual assertion carries an inline citation. Label each finding with a confidence level: HIGH (multiple independent sources), MEDIUM (one strong source), LOW (inferred or single unverified source).
+
+ ## Output format
+
+ ```
+ ## Executive Summary
+ 2–4 sentence answer to the research question.
+
+ ## Findings
+
+ ### [Theme 1]
+ Finding text [Source: URL, date]. Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW.
+
+ ### [Theme 2]
+ ...
+
+ ## Gaps and open questions
+ What was not findable; what would need primary research.
+
+ ## Sources
+ Numbered list: [1] Title, URL, accessed date.
+
+ ## Methodology note
+ Search queries used, tools used, date range.
+ ```
+
+ ## Guardrails
+
+ - Every factual claim must carry a source citation — no unsourced assertions.
+ - Cross-reference required before marking confidence HIGH.
+ - Prefer sources published within the last 12 months unless the topic is historical.
+ - Acknowledge gaps explicitly — do not paper over missing data with confident-sounding prose.
+ - Label confidence levels consistently; never inflate to HIGH without two independent sources.
+ - Do not conflate summary snippets with full-source reading — deep-read before asserting specifics.
+ - If Exa is unavailable, state reduced coverage at the top of the report.
+
+ ## Further reading
+
+ - `../../references/playbooks/deep-research-detailed-playbook.md` — extended step-by-step workflow and detailed templates that complement this playbook.