researcher-hand-skill

# Deep Research Expert Knowledge

## Research Methodology

### Research Process (5 phases)
1. **Define**: Clarify the question, identify what's known vs unknown, set scope
2. **Search**: Systematic multi-strategy search across diverse sources
3. **Evaluate**: Assess source quality, extract relevant data, note limitations
4. **Synthesize**: Combine findings into coherent answer, resolve contradictions
5. **Verify**: Cross-check critical claims, identify remaining uncertainties

### Question Types & Strategies
| Question Type | Strategy | Example |
|--------------|----------|---------|
| Factual | Find authoritative primary source | "What is the population of Tokyo?" |
| Comparative | Multi-source balanced analysis | "React vs Vue for large apps?" |
| Causal | Evidence chain + counterfactuals | "Why did Theranos fail?" |
| Predictive | Trend analysis + expert consensus | "Will quantum computing replace classical?" |
| How-to | Step-by-step from practitioners | "How to set up a Kubernetes cluster?" |
| Survey | Comprehensive landscape mapping | "What are the options for vector databases?" |
| Controversial | Multiple perspectives + primary sources | "Is remote work more productive?" |

### Decomposition Technique
Complex questions should be broken into sub-questions:
```
Main: "Should our startup use microservices?"
Sub-questions:
  1. What are microservices? (definitional)
  2. What are the benefits vs monolith? (comparative)
  3. What team size/stage is appropriate? (contextual)
  4. What are the operational costs? (factual)
  5. What do similar startups use? (case studies)
  6. What are the migration paths? (how-to)
```

---

## CRAAP Source Evaluation Framework

### Currency
- When was it published or last updated?
- Is the information still current for the topic?
- Are the links functional?
- For technology topics: anything >2 years old may be outdated

### Relevance
- Does it directly address your question?
- Who is the intended audience?
- Is the level of detail appropriate?
- Would you cite this in your report?

### Authority
- Who is the author? What are their credentials?
- What institution published this?
- Is there contact information?
- Does the URL domain indicate authority? (.gov, .edu, reputable org)

### Accuracy
- Is the information supported by evidence?
- Has it been reviewed or refereed?
- Can you verify the claims from other sources?
- Are there factual errors, typos, or broken logic?

### Purpose
- Why does this information exist?
- Is it informational, commercial, persuasive, or entertainment?
- Is the bias clear or hidden?
- Does the author/organization benefit from you believing this?

### Scoring
```
A (Authoritative):  Passes all 5 CRAAP criteria
B (Reliable):       Passes 4/5, minor concern on one
C (Useful):         Passes 3/5, use with caveats
D (Weak):           Passes 2/5 or fewer
F (Unreliable):     Fails most criteria, do not cite
```

---

## Search Query Optimization

### Query Construction Techniques

**Exact phrase**: `"specific phrase"` — use for names, quotes, error messages
**Site-specific**: `site:domain.com query` — search within a specific site
**Exclude**: `query -unwanted_term` — remove irrelevant results
**File type**: `filetype:pdf query` — find specific document types
**Recency**: `query after:2024-01-01` — recent results only
**OR operator**: `query (option1 OR option2)` — broaden search
**Wildcard**: `"how to * in python"` — fill-in-the-blank

### Multi-Strategy Search Pattern
For each research question, use at least 3 search strategies:
1. **Direct**: The question as-is
2. **Authoritative**: `site:gov OR site:edu OR site:org [topic]`
3. **Academic**: `[topic] research paper [year]` or `site:arxiv.org [topic]`
4. **Practical**: `[topic] guide` or `[topic] tutorial` or `[topic] how to`
5. **Data**: `[topic] statistics` or `[topic] data [year]`
6. **Contrarian**: `[topic] criticism` or `[topic] problems` or `[topic] myths`

### Source Discovery by Domain
| Domain | Best Sources | Search Pattern |
|--------|-------------|---------------|
| Technology | Official docs, GitHub, Stack Overflow, engineering blogs | `[tech] documentation`, `site:github.com [tech]` |
| Science | PubMed, arXiv, Nature, Science | `site:arxiv.org [topic]`, `[topic] systematic review` |
| Business | SEC filings, industry reports, HBR | `[company] 10-K`, `[industry] report [year]` |
| Medicine | PubMed, WHO, CDC, Cochrane | `site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [topic]` |
| Legal | Court records, law reviews, statute databases | `[case] ruling`, `[law] analysis` |
| Statistics | Census, BLS, World Bank, OECD | `site:data.worldbank.org [metric]` |
| Current events | Reuters, AP, BBC, primary sources | `[event] statement`, `[event] official` |

---

## Cross-Referencing Techniques

### Verification Levels
```
Level 1: Single source (unverified)
  → Mark as "reported by [source]"

Level 2: Two independent sources agree (corroborated)
  → Mark as "confirmed by multiple sources"

Level 3: Primary source + secondary confirmation (verified)
  → Mark as "verified — primary source: [X]"

Level 4: Expert consensus (well-established)
  → Mark as "widely accepted" or "scientific consensus"
```

### Contradiction Resolution
When sources disagree:
1. Check which source is more authoritative (CRAAP scores)
2. Check which is more recent (newer may have updated info)
3. Check if they're measuring different things (apples vs oranges)
4. Check for known biases or conflicts of interest
5. Present both views with evidence for each
6. State which view the evidence better supports (if clear)
7. If genuinely uncertain, say so — don't force a conclusion

---

## Synthesis Patterns

### Narrative Synthesis
```
The evidence suggests [main finding].

[Source A] found that [finding 1], which is consistent with
[Source B]'s observation that [finding 2]. However, [Source C]
presents a contrasting view: [finding 3].

The weight of evidence favors [conclusion] because [reasoning].
A key limitation is [gap or u