firefrost-gaming/claude-code-skills-reference
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(deep-research): V6.1 source accessibility policy and Counter-Review Team

Browse Source 
- Correct source accessibility: distinguish circular verification (forbidden)
  from exclusive information advantage (encouraged)
- Add Counter-Review Team with 5 specialized agents (claim-validator,
  source-diversity-checker, recency-validator, contradiction-finder,
  counter-review-coordinator)
- Add Enterprise Research Mode: 6-dimension data collection framework
  with SWOT, competitive barrier, and risk matrix analysis
- Update version to 2.4.0
- Add comprehensive reference docs:
  - source_accessibility_policy.md
  - V6_1_improvements.md
  - counter_review_team_guide.md
  - enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md
  - enterprise_quality_checklist.md
  - enterprise_research_methodology.md
  - quality_gates.md
  - report_template_v6.md
  - research_notes_format.md
  - subagent_prompt.md

Based on "深度推理" case study methodology lessons learned.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
daymade
2026-04-04 09:15:17 +08:00
parent 87221d94d5
commit 6d261ce801
12 changed files with 1810 additions and 131 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

579
deep-research/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,183 +1,479 @@
---
name: deep-research
description: |
Generate format-controlled research reports with evidence tracking, citations, and iterative review. This skill should be used when users request a research report, literature review, market or industry analysis, competitive landscape, policy or technical brief, or require a strict report template and section formatting that a single deepresearch pass cannot reliably enforce.
Generate format-controlled research reports with evidence tracking, citations, source governance, and multi-pass synthesis.
This skill should be used when users request a research report, literature review, market or industry analysis,
competitive landscape, policy or technical brief. Triggers: "帮我调研一下", "深度研究", "综述报告", "深入分析",
"research this topic", "write a report on", "survey the literature on", "competitive analysis of",
"技术选型分析", "竞品研究", "政策分析", "行业报告".
V6 adds: source-type governance, AS_OF freshness checks, mandatory counter-review, and citation registry. V6.1 adds: source accessibility (circular verification forbidden, exclusive advantage encouraged).
---
# Deep Research
Create high-fidelity research reports with strict format control, evidence mapping, and multi-pass synthesis.
Create high-fidelity research reports with strict format control, evidence mapping, source governance, and multi-pass synthesis.
## Quick Start
1. Clarify the report spec and format contract
2. Build a research plan and query set
3. Collect evidence with the deepresearch tool (multi-pass if needed)
4. Triage sources and build an evidence table
5. Draft the full report in multiple complete passes (parallel subagents)
6. UNION merge, enforce format compliance, verify citations
7. Present draft for human review and iterate
## Core Workflow
Copy this checklist and track progress:
## Architecture: Lead Agent + Subagents
```
Deep Research Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Intake and format contract
- [ ] Step 2: Research plan and query set
- [ ] Step 3: Evidence collection (deepresearch tool)
- [ ] Step 4: Source triage and evidence table
- [ ] Step 5: Outline and section map
- [ ] Step 6: Multi-pass full drafting (parallel subagents)
- [ ] Step 7: UNION merge and format compliance
- [ ] Step 8: Evidence and citation verification
- [ ] Step 9: Present draft for human review and iterate
Lead Agent (coordinator — minimizes raw search context)
|
P0: Environment + source policy setup
|
P1: Research Task Board (roles, queries, parallel groups)
|
Dispatch ──→ Subagent A ──→ writes task-a.md ──┐
──→ Subagent B ──→ writes task-b.md ──┤ (parallel)
──→ Subagent C ──→ writes task-c.md ──┘
| |
| research-notes/ <────────────────────────┘
|
P2: Build citation registry with source_type + as_of + authority
P3: Evidence-mapped outline with counter-claim flags
P4: Draft from notes (never from raw search results)
P5: Counter-review (claims, confidence, alternatives)
P6: Verify (every [n] in registry, traceability check)
P7: Polish → final report with confidence markers
```
### Step 1: Intake and Format Contract
**Context efficiency:** Subagents' raw search results stay in their context and are discarded. Lead agent sees only distilled notes (~60-70% context reduction).
Establish the report requirements before any research:
## Mode Selection
- Confirm audience, purpose, scope, time range, and geography
- Lock output format: Markdown, DOCX, slides, or user-provided template
- Capture required sections and exact formatting rules
- Confirm citation style (footnotes, inline, numbered, APA, etc.)
- Confirm length targets per section
- Ask for any existing style guide or sample report
Determine the research mode before starting:
Create a concise report spec file:
| Dimension | Options |
|-----------|---------|
| **Topic Mode** | Enterprise Research (company/corporation) OR General Research (industry/policy/tech) |
| **Depth Mode** | Standard (5-6 tasks, 3000-8000 words) OR Lightweight (3-4 tasks, 2000-4000 words) |
- **Enterprise Research Mode**: Six-dimension data collection with structured analysis frameworks (SWOT, risk matrix, competitive barrier quantification)
- **General Research Mode**: Standard P0-P7 research pipeline with source governance
- **Depth Selection**: Lightweight for single entity/concept < 30 words; Standard for multi-entity comparison or "深入"/"comprehensive" requests
## Source Governance (V6)
### Source Accessibility Classification
**CRITICAL RULE**: Every source must be classified by accessibility:
| Accessibility | Definition | Examples | Usage Rule |
|--------------|------------|----------|------------|
| `public` | Available to any external researcher without authentication | Public websites, news articles, WHOIS (without privacy), academic papers | ✅ Always allowed |
| `semi-public` | Requires registration or limited access | LinkedIn profiles, Crunchbase basic, industry reports (free tier) | ✅ Allowed with disclosure |
| `exclusive-user-provided` | User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, proprietary databases | Crunchbase Pro, PitchBook, private data feeds, internal databases | ✅ **ALLOWED** for third-party research |
| `private-user-owned` | User's own accounts when researching themselves | User's registrar for user's own company, user's bank for user's own finances | ❌ **FORBIDDEN** - circular verification |
**⚠️ CIRCULAR VERIFICATION BAN**: You must NOT:
- Use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
- Research user's own company by accessing user's private accounts
- Present user's private knowledge as "research findings"
**✅ EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION ADVANTAGE**: You SHOULD:
- Use user's Crunchbase Pro to research competitors
- Use user's proprietary databases for market research
- Use user's private APIs for investment analysis
- Leverage any exclusive source user provides for third-party research
### Source Type Labels
Every source MUST also be tagged with:
| Label | Definition | Examples |
|-------|------------|----------|
| `official` | Primary source, official documentation | Company SEC filings, government reports, official blog |
| `academic` | Peer-reviewed research | Journal articles, conference papers, dissertations |
| `secondary-industry` | Professional analysis | Industry reports, analyst coverage, trade publications |
| `journalism` | News reporting | Reputable media outlets, investigative journalism |
| `community` | User-generated content | Forums, reviews, social media, Q&A sites |
| `other` | Uncategorized or mixed | Aggregators, unverified sources |
**Quality Gates:**
- Standard mode: ≥30% official sources in final approved set
- Lightweight mode: ≥20% official sources
- Maximum single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
- Minimum unique domains: 5 (Standard), 3 (Lightweight)
## AS_OF Date Policy
Set `AS_OF` date explicitly at P0. For all time-sensitive claims:
- Include source publication date with every citation
- Downgrade confidence if source is older than relevant horizon
- Flag stale sources in registry (studies >3 years, news >6 months for fast-moving topics)
## P0: Environment & Policy Setup
Check capabilities before starting:
| Check | Requirement | Impact if Missing |
|-------|-------------|-------------------|
| web_search available | Required | Stop - cannot proceed |
| web_fetch available | Required for DEEP tasks | SCAN-only mode |
| Subagent dispatch | Preferred | Degrade to sequential |
| Filesystem writable | Required | In-memory notes only |
Set policy variables:
- `AS_OF`: Today's date (YYYY-MM-DD) - mandatory for timed topics
- `MODE`: Standard (default) or Lightweight
- `SOURCE_TYPE_POLICY`: Enforce official/academic/secondary/journalism/community/other labels
- `COUNTER_REVIEW_PLAN`: What opposing interpretation to test
Report: `[P0 complete] Subagent: {yes/no}. Mode: {standard/lightweight}. AS_OF: {YYYY-MM-DD}.`
When researching a specific company/enterprise, follow this specialized workflow that ensures six-dimension coverage, quantified analysis frameworks, and three-level quality control.
### Enterprise Workflow Overview
```
Report Spec:
- Audience:
- Purpose:
- Scope:
- Time Range:
- Geography:
- Required Sections:
- Section Formatting Rules:
- Citation Style:
- Output Format:
- Length Targets:
- Tone:
- Must-Include Sources:
- Must-Exclude Topics:
Enterprise Research Progress:
- [ ] E1: Intake — confirm company entity, research depth, format contract
- [ ] E2: Six-dimension data collection (parallel where possible)
- [ ] D1: Company fundamentals (entity, founding, funding, ownership)
- [ ] D2: Business & products (segments, products, revenue structure)
- [ ] D3: Competitive position (industry rank, competitors, barriers)
- [ ] D4: Financial & operations (3-year financials, efficiency metrics)
- [ ] D5: Recent developments (6-month events, strategic signals)
- [ ] D6: Internal/proprietary sources (or note limitation)
- [ ] E3: Structured analysis frameworks
- [ ] SWOT analysis (evidence-backed, 4 quadrants × 3-5 entries)
- [ ] Competitive barrier quantification (7 dimensions, weighted score)
- [ ] Risk matrix (8 categories, probability × impact)
- [ ] Comprehensive scorecard (6 dimensions, weighted total)
- [ ] E4: L1/L2/L3 quality checks at each stage transition
- [ ] E5: Draft report using 7-chapter enterprise template
- [ ] E6: Multi-pass drafting + UNION merge (same as general Step 6-7)
- [ ] E7: Present draft for human review and iterate
```
If a user provides a template or an example report, treat it as a hard constraint and mirror the structure.
## P1: Research Task Board
### Step 2: Research Plan and Query Set
Decompose the research question into 4-6 investigation tasks (Standard) or 3-4 tasks (Lightweight).
Define the research strategy before calling tools:
Each task assignment includes:
- **Expert Role**: Specialist persona (e.g., "Policy Historian", "Ecosystem Mapper")
- **Objective**: One-sentence investigation goal
- **Queries**: 2-3 pre-planned search queries
- **Depth**: DEEP (fetch 2-3 full articles) or SCAN (snippets sufficient)
- **Output**: Path to research notes file
- **Parallel Group**: Group A (independent) or Group B (depends on Group A)
- Break the main question into 3-7 subquestions
- Define key entities, keywords, and synonyms
- Identify primary sources vs secondary sources
- Define disqualifiers (outdated, low quality, opinion-only)
- Assemble a query set per section
### Task Decomposition Rules
Use [references/research_plan_checklist.md](references/research_plan_checklist.md) for guidance.
1. Each task covers one coherent sub-topic a specialist would own
2. Group A tasks must be independent and source-diverse
3. Max 3 tasks per parallel group (concurrency limit)
4. Every task must flag time-sensitive claims and expected citation aging risk
### Step 3: Evidence Collection (Deepresearch Tool)
### Enterprise Research Integration
Use the deepresearch tool to collect evidence and citations.
When in Enterprise Research Mode, task board maps to six dimensions:
- Task A: Company fundamentals (entity, founding, funding, ownership)
- Task B: Business & products (segments, products, revenue structure)
- Task C: Competitive position (industry rank, competitors, barriers)
- Task D: Financial & operations (3-year financials, efficiency metrics)
- Task E: Recent developments (6-month events, strategic signals)
- Task F: Internal/proprietary sources (or document limitation)
- Run multiple complete passes if coverage is uncertain
- Vary query phrasing to reduce blind spots
- Preserve raw tool output in files for traceability
Report: `[P1 complete] {N} tasks in {M} groups. Dispatching Group A.`
---
## Enterprise Research Mode (Specialized Pipeline)
When researching a specific company/enterprise, follow this specialized workflow that ensures six-dimension coverage, quantified analysis frameworks, and three-level quality control.
### E1: Intake
Same as P0/P1 above, plus:
- Confirm the exact legal entity being researched (parent vs subsidiary)
- Select research depth: Quick scan (3-5 pages) / Standard (10-20 pages) / Deep (20-40 pages)
- Identify any specific comparison targets (benchmark companies)
## P2: Dispatch + Investigate
Subagents execute tasks using [references/subagent_prompt.md](references/subagent_prompt.md) and output to [references/research_notes_format.md](references/research_notes_format.md).
### With Subagents (Claude Code / Cowork / DeerFlow)
1. Dispatch Group A tasks in parallel (max 3 concurrent)
2. Each subagent searches, fetches, and tags source types
3. Every source line includes `Source-Type` and `As Of`
4. Wait for Group A completion
5. Dispatch Group B (can read Group A notes)
### Subagent Output Requirements
Each task-{id}.md must contain:
- **Sources section**: URLs from actual search results with Source-Type, As Of, Authority (1-10)
- **Findings section**: Max 10 one-sentence facts with source numbers
- **Deep Read Notes** (DEEP tasks): 2-3 sources read in full with key data/insights
- **Gaps section**: What was searched but NOT found, alternative interpretations
### Without Subagents (Degraded Mode)
Lead agent executes tasks sequentially, acting as each specialist. Raw search results are discarded after writing notes.
### Enterprise Research: Six-Dimension Collection
Follow [references/enterprise_research_methodology.md](references/enterprise_research_methodology.md) for:
- Detailed collection workflow per dimension (query strategies, data fields, validation)
- Data source priority matrix (P0-P3 ranking)
- Cross-validation rules (min sources, max deviation thresholds)
**Key principles**:
- Evidence-driven: every conclusion must trace to a citable source
- Multi-source validation: key data requires ≥2 independent sources
- Restrained judgment: mark speculation explicitly, avoid unsubstantiated claims
- Structured presentation: complex information via tables, lists, hierarchies
Run L1 quality check after completing each dimension (see enterprise_quality_checklist.md).
Status per task: `[P2 task-{id} complete] {N} sources, {M} findings.`
Status all: `[P2 complete] {N} tasks done, {M} total sources. Building registry.`
### E3: Structured Analysis Frameworks
Apply frameworks from [references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md](references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md) in order:
1. **SWOT analysis** — each entry with evidence + source + impact assessment
2. **Competitive barrier quantification** — 7 dimensions with weighted scoring → A+/A/B+/B/C+/C rating
3. **Risk matrix** — 8 mandatory categories, probability × impact → Red/Yellow/Green
4. **Comprehensive scorecard** — 6-dimension weighted total → X/10
Run L2 quality check after analysis is complete.
### E4: Quality Control
Three-level checks from [references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md](references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md):
- **L1 (Data)**: Source count, attribution, cross-validation, timeliness
- **L2 (Analysis)**: SWOT completeness, risk coverage, barrier scoring, conclusion support
- **L3 (Document)**: Structure compliance, format consistency, readability, appendices
### E5: Draft Using Enterprise Template
Use the 7-chapter enterprise report template from enterprise_quality_checklist.md:
1. Company Overview
2. Business & Product Structure
3. Market & Competitive Position
4. Financial & Operations Analysis
5. Risks & Concerns
6. Recent Developments
7. Comprehensive Assessment & Conclusion
Plus appendices: Data Source Index, Glossary, Disclaimer.
### E3-E7: Enterprise Analysis, Drafting, and Review
- **E3: Structured Analysis** — Apply frameworks from [references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md](references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md)
- **E4: Quality Control** — Run L1/L2/L3 checks per [references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md](references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md)
- **E5: Draft** — Use 7-chapter enterprise template
- **E6-E7: Multi-Pass Drafting and Review** — Same as P4-P7 below
---
## P3: Citation Registry + Source Governance
Lead agent reads all task notes and builds unified registry.
### Registry Process
1. Read every task file's `## Sources` section
2. Merge all sources, deduplicate by URL
3. Assign sequential [n] numbers by first appearance
4. Tag: source_type, as_of date, authority score (1-10), task id
5. **Apply quality gates:**
- Standard: ≥12 approved sources, ≥5 unique domains, ≥30% official
- Lightweight: ≥6 approved sources, ≥3 unique domains, ≥20% official
- Max single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
6. **Drop sources** below threshold and list them explicitly
### Registry Output Format
**File structure (recommended):**
```
<output_dir>/research/<topic-name>/
deepresearch_pass1.md
deepresearch_pass2.md
deepresearch_pass3.md
CITATION REGISTRY
Approved:
[1] Author/Org — Title | URL | Source-Type: official | Accessibility: public | Date: 2026-03-01 | Auth: 8 | task-a
[2] ...
Dropped:
x Source | URL | Source-Type: community | Accessibility: privileged | Auth: 3 | Reason: PRIVILEGED SOURCE - NOT ALLOWED
Stats: {approved}/{total}, {N} domains, official_share {xx}%
Privileged sources rejected: {N}
```
If deepresearch is unavailable, rely on user-provided sources only and state limitations explicitly.
**Critical rule:** These [n] are FINAL. P5 may only cite from Approved list. Dropped sources never reappear.
### Step 4: Source Triage and Evidence Table
**Circular verification handling**: When researching the user's own company/assets, if you discover data in user's private accounts (e.g., user's domain registrar showing they own domains), you MUST:
1. Reject it from the registry (user already knows this)
2. Note it as "CIRCULAR - USER ALREADY KNOWS" in Dropped
3. Search for equivalent PUBLIC sources (e.g., public WHOIS, news articles)
4. Report from external investigator perspective only
Normalize and score sources before drafting:
**Exclusive source handling**: When user EXPLICITLY PROVIDES their paid subscriptions or private APIs for third-party research (e.g., "Use my Crunchbase Pro to research competitors"), you SHOULD:
1. Accept it as "exclusive-user-provided" accessibility
2. Use it as competitive advantage
3. Cite it properly in registry
4. If no public equivalent exists, mark as [unverified] or omit the claim
- De-duplicate sources across passes
- Score sources using [references/source_quality_rubric.md](references/source_quality_rubric.md)
- Build an evidence table mapping claims to sources
Report: `[P3 complete] {approved}/{total} sources. {N} domains. Official share: {xx}%. Privileged rejected: {N}.`
Evidence table minimum columns:
### Handling Information Black Box
- Source ID
- Title
- Publisher
- Date
- URL or reference
- Quality tier (A/B/C)
- Notes
When researching entities with no public footprint (like the "深度推理" example):
### Step 5: Outline and Section Map
**What an external researcher would find:**
- WHOIS: Privacy protected → No owner info
- Web search: No news, no press releases
- Social media: No company pages
- Business registries: No public API or requires local access
- Result: **Complete information black box**
Create an outline that enforces the format contract:
- Use the template in [references/research_report_template.md](references/research_report_template.md)
- Produce a section map with required elements per section
- Confirm ordering and headings match the report spec
### Step 6: Multi-Pass Full Drafting (Parallel Subagents)
Avoid single-pass drafting; generate multiple complete reports, then merge.
#### Preferred Strategy: Parallel Subagents (Complete Draft Each)
Use the Task tool to spawn parallel subagents with isolated context. Each subagent must:
- Load the report spec, outline, and evidence table
- Draft the FULL report (all sections)
- Enforce formatting rules and citation style
**Implementation pattern:**
**Correct response:**
```
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Draft complete report ...", run_in_background=false) -> version1.md
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Draft complete report ...", run_in_background=false) -> version2.md
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Draft complete report ...", run_in_background=false) -> version3.md
Findings: NO PUBLIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Sources checked:
- WHOIS (public): Privacy protected [failed]
- Company registry (public): Access denied/No API [failed]
- News media: No coverage [failed]
- Corporate website: Placeholder only [minimal]
Verdict: UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPANY EXISTENCE from external perspective
Sources found: 0 (or minimal, e.g., only WHOIS showing domain exists)
Confidence: N/A - Insufficient evidence
```
**Write drafts to files, not conversation context:**
**DO NOT:**
- ❌ Use user's own credentials to "fill in the gaps"
- ❌ Assume the company exists based on domain registration alone
- ❌ Fill missing data with speculation
- ❌ Claim to have "verified" information you accessed through privileged means
**DO:**
- ✅ Clearly state what an external researcher can/cannot verify
- ✅ Document all failed search attempts
- ✅ Mark claims as [unverified] or omit entirely
- ✅ Downgrade mode to Lightweight or stop if insufficient public sources
- ✅ Recommend direct contact for due diligence
---
## P4: Evidence-Mapped Outline
Lead agent reads notes + registry to build outline.
1. Identify cross-task patterns
2. Design sections topic-first, not task-order-first
3. Map each section to specific findings with source numbers
4. Flag sections needing counter-review
5. Mark recency-sensitive claims with AS_OF checks
Outline format:
```
<output_dir>/intermediate/<topic-name>/version1.md
<output_dir>/intermediate/<topic-name>/version2.md
<output_dir>/intermediate/<topic-name>/version3.md
## N. {Section Title}
Sources: [1][3][7] from tasks a, b
Claims: {claim from task-a finding 3}, {claim from task-b finding 1}
Counter-claim candidates: {alternative explanations}
Recency checks: {source dates + AS_OF}
Gaps: {limited official evidence}
```
### Step 7: UNION Merge and Format Compliance
---
Merge using UNION, never remove content without evidence-based justification:
## P5: Draft from Notes
- Keep all unique findings from all versions
- Consolidate duplicates while preserving the most detailed phrasing
- Ensure every claim in the merged draft has a cited source
- Enforce the exact section order, headings, and formatting
- Re-run formatting rules from [references/formatting_rules.md](references/formatting_rules.md)
Write section by section using [references/report_template_v6.md](references/report_template_v6.md).
### Step 8: Evidence and Citation Verification
**Rules:**
- Every factual claim needs citation [n]
- Numbers/percentages must have source
- Add **confidence marker** per section: High/Medium/Low with rationale
- Add **counter-claim sentence** when evidence conflicts
- No new sources may be introduced
- Use [unverified] for unsupported statements
Verify traceability:
**Anti-hallucination:**
- Lead agent never invents URLs — only from subagent notes
- Lead agent never fabricates data — mark [unverified] if number not in notes
- Every numeric claim has at least one source
- Every recommendation references supporting evidence
- No orphan claims without citations
- Dates and time ranges are consistent
- Conflicts are explicitly called out with both sources
Status: `[P5 in progress] {N}/{M} sections, ~{words} words.`
Use [references/completeness_review_checklist.md](references/completeness_review_checklist.md).
---
### Step 9: Present Draft for Human Review and Iterate
## P6: Counter-Review (Mandatory)
Present the draft as a reviewable version:
For each major conclusion, perform opposite-view checks:
- Emphasize that format compliance and factual accuracy need human review
- Accept edits to format, structure, and scope
- If the user provides another AI output, cross-compare and UNION merge
1. **Could the conclusion be wrong?**
2. **Which high-impact claims depend on a single source?**
3. **Which claims lack official/academic support?**
4. **Are stale sources used for time-sensitive claims?**
5. **Find ≥3 issues** (re-examine if 0 found)
### Using Counter-Review Team (Recommended)
For comprehensive parallel review, use the Counter-Review Team:
```bash
# 1. Prepare inputs
counter-review-inputs/
├── draft_report.md
├── citation_registry.md
├── task-notes/
└── p0_config.md
# 2. Dispatch to 4 specialist agents in parallel
SendMessage to: claim-validator
SendMessage to: source-diversity-checker
SendMessage to: recency-validator
SendMessage to: contradiction-finder
# 3. Wait for all specialists to complete
# 4. Send to coordinator for synthesis
SendMessage to: counter-review-coordinator
inputs: [4 specialist reports]
# 5. Receive final P6 Counter-Review Report
```
See [references/counter_review_team_guide.md](references/counter_review_team_guide.md) for detailed usage.
### Manual Counter-Review (Fallback)
If Counter-Review Team is unavailable, perform manual checks:
- Verify every high-confidence claim has ≥2 sources
- Check official/academic backing for key claims
- Verify AS_OF dates on time-sensitive claims
- Document opposing interpretations
### Output
Include in final report:
```
## 核心争议 / Key Controversies
- **争议 1:** [主张 A 与反向证据 B 对比] [n][m]
- **争议 2:** ...
```
Report: `[P6 complete] {N} issues found: {critical} critical, {high} high, {medium} medium.`
---
## P7: Verify
Cross-check before finalization:
1. **Registry cross-check:** List every [n] in report vs approved registry
2. **Spot-check 5+ claims:** Trace to task notes
3. **Remove/fix non-traceable claims**
4. **Validate no dropped source resurrected**
5. **Check source concentration** for key claims
Report: `[P7 complete] {N} spot-checks, {M} violations fixed.`
---
## Output Requirements
@@ -188,6 +484,18 @@ Present the draft as a reviewable version:
## Reference Files
### Core V6 Pipeline References
| File | When to Load |
| --- | --- |
| [source_accessibility_policy.md](references/source_accessibility_policy.md) | **P0 (CRITICAL)**: Source classification rules - read first |
| [subagent_prompt.md](references/subagent_prompt.md) | P2: Task dispatch to subagents |
| [research_notes_format.md](references/research_notes_format.md) | P2: Subagent output format |
| [report_template_v6.md](references/report_template_v6.md) | P5: Draft with confidence markers and counter-review |
| [quality_gates.md](references/quality_gates.md) | All phases: Quality thresholds and anti-hallucination checks |
### General Research References
| File | When to Load |
| --- | --- |
| [research_report_template.md](references/research_report_template.md) | Build outline and draft structure |
@@ -196,6 +504,14 @@ Present the draft as a reviewable version:
| [research_plan_checklist.md](references/research_plan_checklist.md) | Build research plan and query set |
| [completeness_review_checklist.md](references/completeness_review_checklist.md) | Review for coverage, citations, and compliance |
### Enterprise Research References (load when in Enterprise Research Mode)
| File | When to Load |
| --- | --- |
| [enterprise_research_methodology.md](references/enterprise_research_methodology.md) | Six-dimension data collection workflow, source priority, cross-validation rules |
| [enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md](references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md) | SWOT template, competitive barrier quantification, risk matrix, comprehensive scoring |
| [enterprise_quality_checklist.md](references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md) | L1/L2/L3 quality checks, per-dimension checklists, 7-chapter report template |
## Anti-Patterns
- Single-pass drafting without parallel complete passes
@@ -205,3 +521,10 @@ Present the draft as a reviewable version:
- Mixing conflicting dates without calling out discrepancies
- Copying external AI output without verification
- Deleting intermediate drafts or raw research outputs
- **Lead agent reading raw search results** — only read subagent notes
- **Inventing URLs** — only use URLs from actual search results
- **Resurrecting dropped sources** — dropped in P3 never reappear
- **Missing AS_OF for time-sensitive claims** — always include source date
- **Skipping counter-review** — mandatory P6 must find ≥3 issues
- **CIRCULAR VERIFICATION** — never use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
- **IGNORING EXCLUSIVE SOURCES** — when user provides Crunchbase Pro etc. for competitor research, USE IT