Report Findings
Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.
<when_to_use>
- Synthesizing research from multiple sources
- Presenting findings with proper attribution
- Comparing options with structured analysis
- Assessing source credibility
- Documenting research conclusions
NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions
</when_to_use>
<source_authority>
Tier 1: Primary Sources (90–100% confidence)
- Official documentation — authoritative source material
- Original research — peer-reviewed, verified data
- Direct observation — first-hand evidence
- Canonical references — definitive specifications
Use for: factual claims, behavior guarantees, canonical information
Tier 2: Authoritative Secondary (70–90% confidence)
- Expert analysis — recognized authorities in field
- Established publications — reputable sources with editorial standards
- Official guides — sanctioned but not canonical
- Conference materials — from recognized experts
Use for: best practices, patterns, trade-off analysis
Tier 3: Community Sources (50–70% confidence)
- Community discussions — Q&A sites, forums
- Individual analysis — blogs, personal research
- Crowd-sourced content — wikis, collaborative docs
- Anecdotal evidence — reported experiences
Use for: practical workarounds, common pitfalls, usage examples
Tier 4: Unverified (0–50% confidence)
- Unattributed content — no clear source
- Outdated material — age unknown or clearly stale
- Questionable provenance — content farms, SEO-driven
- Unchecked AI content — generated without verification
Use for: initial leads only, must verify against higher tiers
</source_authority>
<cross_referencing>
Two-Source Minimum
Never rely on single source for critical claims:
- Find claim in initial source
- Seek confirmation in independent source
- If sources conflict → investigate further
- If sources agree → moderate confidence
- If 3+ sources agree → high confidence
Conflict Resolution
When sources disagree:
- Check dates — newer information often supersedes
- Compare authority — higher tier beats lower tier
- Verify context — might both be right in different scenarios
- Test empirically — verify through direct observation if possible
- Document uncertainty — flag with △ if unresolved
Triangulation
For complex questions:
- Official sources — what should happen
- Direct evidence — what actually happens
- Community reports — what people experience
All three align → high confidence
Mismatches → investigate the gap
</cross_referencing>
<comparison_analysis>
Feature Comparison Matrix
| Feature | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|
| Criterion 1 | High | Medium | Low |
| Criterion 2 | Medium | High | High |
| Criterion 3 | Large | Small | Medium |
Trade-off Analysis
For each option, capture:
- Strengths — what it does well
- Weaknesses — what it struggles with
- Use cases — when to choose this
- Deal-breakers — when to avoid this
Weighted Decision Matrix
- List criteria (importance factors)
- Assign weights (1–5 importance)
- Score each option (1–5 on each criterion)
- Calculate: Σ(weight × score)
- Highest total → recommended option
</comparison_analysis>
<citation_requirements>
When to Cite
Always cite for:
- Specific claims — quantitative statements, statistics
- Best practices — recommended approaches
- Breaking changes — behavioral shifts
- Warnings — risks, vulnerabilities, concerns
Citation Format
Inline references:
[Source Name](URL) — linked citation
[Source Name] — reference to listed source
- Direct attribution in prose
Source Attribution
In findings:
## Research Findings
Based on:
- [Primary Source](url)
- [Secondary Source](url)
- [Community Discussion](url)
△ Note: { caveats about sources }
</citation_requirements>
<research_workflow>
Breadth-First Discovery
- Formulate question — clear, specific
- Identify keywords — search terms
- Survey landscape — skim 5–10 sources
- Cluster findings — group similar perspectives
- Identify gaps — what's missing?
Depth-First Investigation
- Select promising source — highest authority
- Read thoroughly — understand fully
- Follow references — cited sources
- Validate claims — cross-check
- Synthesize — extract key insights
Iterative Refinement
- Initial answer — based on first pass
- Identify uncertainty — what's unclear?
- Targeted research — fill specific gaps
- Update answer — incorporate findings
- Repeat until confidence threshold met
</research_workflow>
<synthesis_techniques>
Common Themes
Across sources, extract:
- Consensus — what everyone agrees on
- Disagreements — where opinions differ
- Edge cases — nuanced situations
- Evolution — how thinking has changed
Pattern Recognition
Look for:
- Repeated recommendations — multiple sources suggest same approach
- Consistent warnings — multiple sources flag same pitfall
- Recurring examples — same patterns shown
- Aligned trade-offs — similar benefit/cost analysis
Structured Summary
Present findings:
- Main answer — clear, actionable
- Supporting evidence — cite 2–3 strongest sources
- Caveats — limitations, context-specific notes
- Alternatives — other valid approaches
- Further reading — for deeper dive
</synthesis_techniques>
<confidence_calibration>
Research quality affects confidence:
High confidence (▓▓▓▓▓):
- 3+ tier-1 sources agree
- Empirically verified
- Current/maintained sources
Moderate confidence (▓▓▓░░):
- 2 tier-2 sources agree
- Some empirical support
- Recent but not authoritative
Low confidence (▓░░░░):
- Single source or tier-3 only
- Unverified claims
- Outdated information
△ Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence
</confidence_calibration>
<output_format>
Findings Report
Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer to research question }
Key Findings
- {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
- {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }
Confidence Assessment
Overall: {BAR} {PERCENTAGE}%
High confidence areas:
Lower confidence areas:
Sources
△ Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }
</output_format>
<rules>
ALWAYS:
- Assess source authority before citing
- Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
- Include confidence levels with findings
- Cite sources with proper attribution
- Flag uncertainties with △
NEVER:
- Cite single source for critical claims
- Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
- Skip confidence calibration
- Hide conflicting sources
- Omit caveats section when uncertainty exists
</rules>
<references>
Related skills:
- [research-and-report](../research-and-report/SKILL.md) — full research workflow (loads this skill)
- [codebase-analysis](../codebase-analysis/SKILL.md) — uses for technical research synthesis
- [pattern-analysis](../pattern-analysis/SKILL.md) — identifying patterns in findings
</references>