Status: GA — A structured 7-stage research protocol for questions that require more than a quick lookup. Goes from question to defensible brief with forced hypothesis generation and adversarial challenge before writing conclusions.
- Scopes research questions before gathering — prevents chasing the wrong thing
- Forces hypothesis commitment before evidence gathering (prevents confirmation bias)
- Builds an argument skeleton before filling in sources
- Adversarially challenges the hypothesis with a steelmanned counterargument (Stage 6)
- Produces structured briefs with calibrated confidence levels
- Routes output correctly: inline for short answers, filed to
docs/research/for long-form
Claude Code / Cursor / any Agent Skills-compatible agent:
git clone https://github.com/jeremyknows/deep-research ~/.claude/skills/deep-researchOpenClaw:
git clone https://github.com/jeremyknows/deep-research ~/.openclaw/skills/deep-research"Do a deep research on X"
"/deep-research [question]"
"Research this properly — I need to make a decision"
"Do a structured brief on [topic]"
"Deep dive on [tool/technology/concept]"
| Tool | Best for |
|---|---|
deep-research |
Tool eval, competitive intel, concept validation, decisions you'll act on |
last30days |
Recent news, trends, X discourse (≤30 days) |
| Quick web search | Factual lookups, "what's the current version of X" |
Stage 1: Scope Define the question and success criteria
Stage 2: Gather Cast wide — web, X, GitHub, docs
Stage 3: Hypothesize What's the non-obvious answer?
Stage 4: Skeleton Build the argument structure first
Stage 5: Evidence Fill the skeleton with sources
Stage 6: Challenge Steelman the counterargument
Stage 7: Output Write the brief with confidence level
Fast-path (1→2→7): Only when the question has one clear answer, stakes are low, you already have 2+ primary sources, and no significant decision depends on it.
# Research Brief: [Question]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — [one sentence why]
## Answer
[1–3 sentence direct answer. Lead with the conclusion.]
## Evidence Summary
- [Key finding 1 — source]
- [Key finding 2 — source]
## Strongest Counterargument
[From Stage 6]
## Decision Recommendation
[Watch / Use now / Act on / Archive — with specific next step]| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| High | 3+ independent primary sources + weak counterargument + no major unknowns |
| Medium | 1–2 primary sources, OR counterargument has merit, OR significant unknowns |
| Low | Mostly secondhand/opinion, OR strong counterargument, OR major unknowns |
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
references/source-routing.md |
Which tools/sources to use by question type |
references/brief-quality-checklist.md |
Pre-filing checklist for briefs |
references/skeleton-examples.md |
Stage 4 skeleton examples + Stage 6 worked examples |
- Version: 1.2.0
- Health score: 12/14
- Status: GA — 4 production runs completed 2026-03-23, avg 5.1/6 scorecard
- PRISM reviewed: 2026-03-22 (6 reviewers, all AWC)
- Category: Research & Analysis
deep-research/
├── SKILL.md — Core skill (282 lines)
├── README.md — This file
├── LICENSE.txt — MIT
├── .gitignore
└── references/
├── source-routing.md — Source selection by question type
├── brief-quality-checklist.md — Pre-filing quality checks
└── skeleton-examples.md — Stage 4/6 worked examples
MIT License — jeremyknows — v1.2.0