git:20261008.a85674e to git:20261015.f440cbb

- description: Use when the user asks for source-backed investigation — deep web research, market/competitor analysis, or technology selection — producing a cited Markdown artifact under docs/research/. Three modes: general, market, tech-selection. Triggers on "deep research", "调研报告", "市场调研", "竞品分析", "技术选型", "选哪个", "方案对比". Not for design visual references (use design-research) or writing the PRD/spec (use spec).

- Source-backed investigation that produces a cited Markdown artifact under `docs/research/`. Three

- modes share one spine — frame the question, search with the mode's source strategy, adversarially

- verify, synthesize a cited report — but differ in sources, frameworks, and output template.

-

- - **general** — deep multi-source web research with inline citations (深度调研, 调研转文档)

- - **market** — market sizing, competitor analysis, investor due diligence, industry intelligence (市场调研, 竞品分析)

- - **tech-selection** — choosing/comparing a stack, library, framework, or repo for a concrete requirement (技术选型, 方案对比, 选哪个)

- - Triggers on "deep research", "调研报告", "市场调研", "竞品分析", "技术选型", "选哪个", "方案对比"

- **Not for:** short queries or single-source lookups; design visual references (use `design-research`); writing the PRD/spec itself (use `spec`). Does not build embeddings, vector stores, or persistent indexes.

- ### 1. Pick the mode and frame the question

-

- Route by the dominant signal in the ask — don't guess:

-

- | Signal in the ask | Mode | Source strategy |

- | --- | --- | --- |

- | Tech / framework / library / SDK / repo / tool comparison | tech-selection | GitHub-first P0 |

- | Market / competitor / investor / industry / pricing / TAM | market | SEC, reports, press |

- | Everything else — concept, spec, state-of-the-art survey | general | Official docs, blog, paper, GitHub |

-

- If the ask hits **two or more modes** (e.g. "research DeepSeek's harness" is both a tech-framework

- question *and* a company deep-dive; "an AI company's stack + market" is both tech-selection and

- market), **ask the user to pick one** — "技术选型（GitHub 源优先）/ 市场分析 / 通用深度？三选一" —

- rather than silently choosing. A single dominant signal needs no question; state assumptions and

- proceed.

-

- Then restate the goal, scope, output language, and output path:

-

- - **general** → `docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md` (slug: 2-4 words, lowercase ASCII; transliterate non-ASCII; no redundant prefixes). If the file exists, append `-2` or `-HHmmss`; overwrite only with explicit permission.

- - **market** → `docs/research/market.md`

- - **tech-selection** → `docs/research/competitor.md`

-

- If the topic is too broad to search usefully, ask one concise scoping question; otherwise state

- assumptions and proceed. Consider delegating to a background agent to keep working while it reads.

-

- Load the mode reference for the mode-specific source strategy, frameworks, and output template:

- - general → [references/general-mode.md](references/general-mode.md)

- - market → [references/market-mode.md](references/market-mode.md)

- - tech-selection → [references/tech-selection-mode.md](references/tech-selection-mode.md)

-

- ### 2. Search with the mode's source strategy

-

- Every mode fans out across ≥3 source categories and ≥3 query angles, but the source priority differs:

-

- - **general** — official docs, project blogs, papers, release notes, GitHub repos. ≥6 relevant sources for broad topics.

- - **market** — investor/fund data, competitive intel, market reports, public datasets. Includes the 4 market sub-modes (investor diligence, competitive analysis, market sizing, technology/vendor research).

- - **tech-selection** — GitHub-first (P0: repos/README/issues/PRs/releases), then official docs (P1), community signal (P2), SEO listicles background-only (P3). ≥5 credible candidates before narrowing.

-

- ### 3. Fetch sources — never trust snippets

-

- Search current information; never rely on memory. Fetch the source page before summarizing — never

- treat search snippets as final evidence. On empty or navigation-only pages, retry in order: add

- wait, switch format, switch canonical URL, try sitemap/site search, fall back to raw GitHub/API

- source. Mark access limits if all fail. If the fetch tool itself is unavailable (network policy,

- auth wall) or a search tool's quota is exhausted, switch tools by quota dependency — see

- [references/web-tool-fallback.md](references/web-tool-fallback.md). Prefer primary sources; discard

- reposts, SEO listicles, off-topic, and low-signal duplicates. Collect both Chinese and English

- sources where relevant. Source-code material (repo, SDK source, release notes whose canonical home

- is a repo) → `git clone --depth 1` into `archive/` (gitignored provenance) and read locally, rather

- than relying on remote fetch of individual files.

-

- ### 4. Adversarially verify claims

-

- For each key claim, follow it back to the primary source that owns it. Record: title, URL,

- published/updated date, access date, reliability class, claims supported. Surface conflicts, stale

- data, missing dates, and access restrictions explicitly. Separate fact from inference; mark

- uncertain claims as inference. Include contrarian evidence and downside cases; delete unsupported

- claims or label them as inference.

-

- Two checks are mandatory, not optional:

-

- - **Falsify negative claims on GitHub.** If a conclusion asserts that something does *not* exist —

- "X 未发布 / 不存在 / 无官方实现 / 尚未开源 / 未开源" — search the org/product on GitHub before publishing

- it. "Didn't find it" ≠ "doesn't exist": record the search term, the org name tried, and the result

- (found / not found). If the negative cannot be falsified from a primary source, label it

- `UNVERIFIED:` with the search trail, and do not present a secondary source's "截至 X 月" snapshot

- as the current truth.

- - **Re-check recency on secondary sources.** When a secondary source is dated "截至 X 月" / "as of X"

- and that point is more than one month old, check the official org's latest activity (GitHub

- release/commit, official blog, official X) before restating its claim. A stale "as of" is a lead,

- not a conclusion.

-

- ### 5. Synthesize the cited Markdown report

- Default language: match the user's input language (Chinese input → Chinese report, English → English). The user can override with an explicit instruction. Proper nouns, code identifiers,

- filenames, and license names stay in original form. Inline-cite at each claim (`[text](url)`), not

- just a URL dump in the appendix. Use the **conclusion-first 9-section spine** shared by all modes —

- §1 TL;DR → §2 核心认知 → §3-§7 主体 → §8 避坑清单 → §9 源附录与核查记录. Load

- [references/report-spine.md](references/report-spine.md) for the full structure, main-thread rule,

- mermaid rules, and shared skeleton. Each mode ref fills the mode-specific 主体 (§3-§7). Trim to fit

- but keep fixed sections (§1/§2/§8/§9) in order.

- ### 6. Deliver a short chat summary

- Report: file path, the key conclusion/recommendation, top reasons, main tradeoff or risk, source

- count by source class, and any access limitations. If live browsing was unavailable or forbidden,

- do not present the result as researched — explain the limitation and offer an offline-only draft.

- **Output:** `docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md` (general) / `docs/research/market.md` (market) / `docs/research/competitor.md` (tech-selection) — cited research artifact, archived cumulatively. Conclusions feed PRD/spec decisions: the human confirms key conclusions (采纳/修正/驳回) before they're adopted downstream — record the confirmation in the report. Format: `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/human-audit.md`.

- - The `.md` file exists and contains no unresolved placeholders (`TBD`, `[标题]`, `https://example.com`, `github.com/org/repo`).

- - Every key conclusion, recommendation, comparison point, and date-sensitive claim has an inline citation.

- - Source appendix lists access dates and access limitations.

- - The mode was chosen via the criteria table, not guessed; if the ask hit two or more modes, the user was asked to pick.

- - Any negative claim ("未发布/不存在/尚未开源/无官方实现") carries a GitHub falsification record (search term, org, result) or an `UNVERIFIED:` label — never a bare secondary-source assertion.

- - For any tech/framework/org topic, GitHub source evidence is present regardless of mode.

- - For all modes: §1 TL;DR is conclusion-first (not process/method); §2 核心认知 states one main thread in a findable sentence and includes ≥1 decision flowchart; §8 避坑清单 has numbered negative claims each carrying evidence or a falsification trail; §9 源附录与核查记录 has 9.2 负面断言核查记录 + 9.3 UNVERIFIED + 9.4 访问限制与缺口 subsections.

- - For general: 9-section conclusion-first structure; ≥3 mermaid (≥1 decision flowchart in §2), each serving information.

- - For tech-selection: GitHub repo evidence + official docs present; stars alone did not drive the recommendation.

- - For market: all numbers sourced or labeled estimates; old data flagged; recommendation follows from evidence.

- - Final reply states: file path, source count, access limitations.

- - [${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/engineering-principles.md](${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/engineering-principles.md) — discipline for every skill (surface assumptions, verify don't assume, push back).

- - [${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/human-audit.md](${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/human-audit.md) — audit-block baseline: AUD vs 确认 blocks, status lifecycle, readability bar.

- - [${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/product-principles.md](${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/product-principles.md) — product discipline (the real competitor is the current workaround). Linked by market + tech-selection modes.

- - [references/report-spine.md](references/report-spine.md) — shared conclusion-first 9-section spine (TL;DR → 核心认知 → 主体 → 避坑 → 源附录与核查记录), main-thread rule, mermaid rules, shared skeleton.

- - [references/general-mode.md](references/general-mode.md) — general mode: 9-section conclusion-first template, fan-out source strategy, mermaid/glossary patterns.

- - [references/market-mode.md](references/market-mode.md) — market mode: 4 sub-modes (investor/competitive/sizing/tech-vendor), 9-section conclusion-first template, market frameworks.

- - [references/tech-selection-mode.md](references/tech-selection-mode.md) — tech-selection mode: GitHub-first P0-P3 source priority, 9-section conclusion-first template, selection rubric.

- - [references/pressure-scenarios.md](references/pressure-scenarios.md) — failure-mode pressure tests for this skill.