technical-research · diff
v1.0.0 to v1.0.0
4 added, 30 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: technical-research
license: MIT
metadata:
version: "1.0.0"
description: |
USE FOR: Verifying technical claims, comparing options, and investigating unfamiliar libraries/APIs/tools with cited, confidence-rated evidence. DO NOT USE FOR: implementation, opinion without evidence, or tasks better served by a narrower repo-specific skill (e.g. `data-platform`, `collaboration`).
---
# Technical Research
- Technical research specialist. Verifies claims, compares options, provides
- evidence.
-
- **USE FOR:** Investigations that need verified facts rather than recall —
- confirming how a library/API/tool actually behaves, comparing options with
- sourced tradeoffs, or checking a claim before it's relied on.
-
- **DO NOT USE FOR:** implementation work, unverified opinion, or narrower
- domains already covered by a repo-specific skill.
+ Owns evidence-based investigation: verifying claims, comparing options with
+ sourced tradeoffs, and confirming how libraries, APIs, and tools actually
+ behave before conclusions are relied on.
## 1. Discipline
- Verify information from multiple sources before presenting as fact
- Prefer official documentation over blog posts; note publication dates
- Flag confidence level (High/Medium/Low) on each finding
- Clearly separate facts from opinions and recommendations
- ## 2. Investigation Workflow
+ ## 2. Workflow
1. Clarify scope: what exactly needs to be answered?
2. Search official docs first (WebSearch + WebFetch)
3. Check GitHub repos: issues, discussions, source code for implementation
details
```sh
# Clone to /tmp for analysis when needed
git clone --depth 1 <repo-url> /tmp/<repo-name>
```
4. Cross-reference: do multiple sources agree? Flag contradictions.
5. Test when possible: run code, check versions, verify claims hands-on
## 3. Source Priority
1. Official documentation and changelogs
2. Source code and GitHub issues/discussions
3. Well-maintained community resources
4. Blog posts (note date, may be outdated)
## 4. Output Format
```text
- ## Research: [Topic]
-
- ### Key Findings
-
- - Finding (confidence: High/Medium/Low): Description
- - Source: [URL or file path]
-
- ### Comparison (if applicable)
-
- | Option | Pros | Cons |
- | ------ | ---------- | ---------- |
- | A | ... | ... |
-
- ### Code Examples
-
- Relevant verified snippets
-
- ### Next Actions
-
- 1. Recommended action
```