claude-code-skills-reference/deep-research/references/V6_1_improvements.md

Deep Research Skill V6.1 Improvements

Date: 2026-04-03
Version: 2.3.0 → 2.4.0
Based on: User feedback and "字节跳动" case study

---

Summary of Changes

1. Source Accessibility Policy - Critical Correction

Problem Identified:
Previously, we incorrectly banned all "privileged" sources. This was wrong because it prevented users from leveraging their competitive information advantages.

The Real Issue:
The problem is not using user's private information—it's circular verification: using user's data to "discover" what they already know about themselves.

Example of the Error:

User: "Research my company 字节跳动子公司"
❌ WRONG: Access user's Spaceship → "You own 25 domains"
   → This is circular: user already knows they own these domains

✅ RIGHT: Check public WHOIS → "Privacy protected, ownership not visible"
   → This is external research perspective

Correct Classification:

Accessibility	For Self-Research	For Third-Party Research
public	✅ Use	✅ Use
semi-public	✅ Use	✅ Use
exclusive-user-provided	⚠️ Careful*	✅ ENCOURAGED
private-user-owned	❌ FORBIDDEN	N/A

* When user provides exclusive sources for their own company, evaluate if it's circular

2. Counter-Review Team V2

Created: 5-agent parallel review team

• 🔵 claim-validator: Claim validation
• 🟢 source-diversity-checker: Source diversity analysis
• 🟡 recency-validator: Recency/freshness checks
• 🟣 contradiction-finder: Contradiction and bias detection
• 🟠 counter-review-coordinator: Synthesis and reporting

Usage:

# 1. Dispatch to 4 specialists in parallel
SendMessage to: claim-validator
SendMessage to: source-diversity-checker
SendMessage to: recency-validator
SendMessage to: contradiction-finder

# 2. Send to coordinator for synthesis
SendMessage to: counter-review-coordinator

3. Methodology Clarifications

When Researching User's Own Company

• Approach: External investigator perspective
• Use: Public sources only
• Do NOT use: User's private accounts (creates circular verification)
• Report: "From public perspective: X, Y, Z gaps"

When User Provides Exclusive Sources for Third-Party Research

• Approach: Leverage competitive advantage
• Use: User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, proprietary databases
• Cite: Mark as exclusive-user-provided
• Report: "Per user's exclusive source [Crunchbase Pro], competitor X raised $Y"

4. Registry Format Update

Added fields:

• Accessibility: public / semi-public / exclusive-user-provided / private-user-owned
• Circular rejection tracking: Note when sources are rejected for circular verification

Updated anti-patterns:

• ❌ CIRCULAR VERIFICATION: Never use user's private data to "discover" what they already know
• ✅ USE EXCLUSIVE SOURCES: When user provides Crunchbase Pro etc. for competitor research, USE IT

5. Documentation Updates

New/Updated Files:

• source_accessibility_policy.md: Complete rewrite explaining circular vs. competitive advantage distinction
• counter_review_team_guide.md: Usage guide for the 5-agent team
• SKILL.md: Updated Source Governance section with correct classification
• marketplace.json: Updated description

---

Key Principles Summary

1. Circular Verification is Bad: Don't use user's data to tell them what they already know
2. Exclusive Information Advantage is Good: Use user's paid tools to research competitors
3. External Perspective for Self-Research: When researching user's own company, act like an external investigator
4. Leverage Everything for Third-Party: When researching others, use every advantage user provides

---

Version History

Version	Changes
2.0.0	Initial Enterprise Research Mode
2.1.0	V6 features: source governance, AS_OF, counter-review
2.2.0	Counter-Review Team
2.3.0	Source accessibility (initial, incorrect ban on privileged)
2.4.0	Corrected: circular vs. exclusive advantage distinction