潮汐调研框架

---

name: deep-research-framework description: > This skill should be used when the user requests a structured, in-depth research on a specific topic, industry, technology, product, market, person, organization, or any domain-specific subject. Trigger phrases include: "深度调研", "帮我研究一下", "做一份调研报告", "分析一下XX行业/市场/技术", "写一份研究报告", "deep research", "research report", "调研", "研究报告", "行业报告", "竞品分析", "market research", "技术调研", "可行性分析", "尽职调查". This skill guides a rigorous, multi-source, evidence-balanced research process that: - Defines research audience and objectives before starting - Decomposes the topic into structured dimensions - Gathers evidence from multiple sources with credibility ratings - Includes counterevidence and conflicting viewpoints - Flags information gaps honestly instead of fabricating - Delivers a structured report plus a one-page summary card

---

Deep Research Framework

A structured deep-research skill for producing rigorous, balanced, and actionable research reports on any topic.

Overview

This skill enforces a disciplined research methodology. It is NOT a simple "search and summarize" tool. It demands evidence quality control, counterevidence inclusion, and honest flagging of gaps.

Outputs: 1. Structured Research Report — full-depth analysis organized by dimensions 2. One-Page Summary Card — key findings, confidence levels, and action items

Phase 0 — Pre-Research Clarification

Before starting research, confirm these inputs from the user or infer them from context:

| Input | Required | Default if absent | |-------|----------|-------------------| | Research topic | Yes | — | | Target audience | Recommended | "decision maker / general professional" | | Key dimensions to focus on | Optional | Use standard dimension set (see references) | | Time scope | Optional | "recent 1–3 years unless specified" | | Depth level | Optional | "standard" (balanced breadth and depth) |

If the topic is ambiguous, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding.

Phase 1 — Research Design

1.1 Define the Research Objective

State in 1–2 sentences: What question is this research answering, and what decision or understanding will it enable?

1.2 Define the Audience

State who will read this: their background, what they already know, and what they need to walk away with.

1.3 Scope and Constraints

Time scope: Which period does the research cover?

Geographic scope: Global? China? Specific region?

Exclusions: What is explicitly out of scope?

1.4 Decompose into Research Dimensions

Break the topic into 4–7 dimensions. For each dimension:

Write 2–4 key questions that need answering

Assign a priority: Core / Supporting / Context

Use references/dimension-templates.md for standard dimension sets by research type (industry, technology, company, product, market).

Phase 2 — Multi-Source Research Execution

2.1 Source Strategy

For each dimension, gather from at least 2–3 distinct source types:

| Source Type | Examples | Default Credibility | |-------------|----------|---------------------| | Primary data | Official reports, regulatory filings, academic papers | ★★★★★ | | Industry reports | McKinsey, Gartner, IDC, CB Insights, Frost & Sullivan | ★★★★ | | News & media | Reuters, Bloomberg, FT, 36kr, 财新, 虎嗅 | ★★★ | | Expert commentary | Interviews, conference talks, analyst notes | ★★★ | | Community & forums | Reddit, Zhihu, GitHub Issues, industry forums | ★★ | | AI-generated synthesis | LLM summaries without cited sources | ★ |

See references/credibility-rubric.md for detailed credibility rating rules.

2.2 Search Execution

For each research dimension: 1. Formulate targeted search queries (try multiple angles) 2. Retrieve results using web_search or available tools 3. For each piece of evidence, record: claim, source, credibility rating, date

2.3 Counterevidence Requirement (MANDATORY)

For every major claim in the report, actively search for contradicting evidence:

If counterevidence exists: include it alongside the main claim, labeled [反面证据]

If no counterevidence found: note [未发现明显反面证据，可信度待验]

NEVER omit counterevidence to make the report cleaner or more conclusive

2.4 Conflicting Information Handling

When two credible sources contradict each other:

Present BOTH positions side-by-side

Note the source, date, and credibility of each

Do NOT pick a side unless evidence weight is clearly asymmetric

Label the conflict: [矛盾信息 — 并列呈现]

2.5 Information Gap Flagging (MANDATORY)

When a key question cannot be answered from available sources:

Mark it clearly: [信息不足 — 无法得出可靠结论]

State what type of source would be needed to fill the gap

NEVER fabricate data, statistics, or citations to fill gaps

Phase 3 — Synthesis and Analysis

3.1 Evidence Weighting

Synthesize findings dimension by dimension:

Higher-credibility sources take precedence

Recent data (within 12 months) takes precedence over older data

Consensus across multiple independent sources strengthens confidence

3.2 Insight Generation

Go beyond summarizing to identify:

Key patterns and trends

Surprising or counterintuitive findings

Implications for the research objective

Open questions that remain after research

3.3 Confidence Levels

Assign a confidence level to each major finding:

| Level | Meaning | |-------|---------| | 高 (High) | Multiple independent ★★★★+ sources agree | | 中 (Medium) | Some evidence, limited cross-validation | | 低 (Low) | Single source, low credibility, or conflicting signals | | 未知 (Unknown) | Insufficient data, explicitly flagged |

Phase 4 — Output Delivery

4.1 Full Research Report

Follow the template in assets/report-template.md. Structure:

1. 研究概览 — objective, audience, scope, date 2. 执行摘要 — 5–7 bullet key findings with confidence levels 3. 维度分析 — one section per dimension with: - Key findings - Supporting evidence (with source + credibility) - Counterevidence - Confidence level - Information gaps (if any) 4. 矛盾与争议 — consolidated list of conflicting information 5. 综合洞察 — cross-dimension synthesis and implications 6. 信息缺口清单 — all flagged gaps in one place 7. 参考资料 — all sources with credibility ratings

4.2 One-Page Summary Card

Follow the template in assets/summary-card-template.md. Deliver after the full report.

The card contains:

Topic + audience + date (header)

3 most important findings (with confidence)

1 most important counterpoint

1 key uncertainty / gap

Suggested next actions (if applicable)

Overall research confidence score (High / Medium / Low)

Quality Checklist (self-check before delivery)

Before presenting the output, verify:

[ ] Every major claim has a cited source with credibility rating

[ ] Counterevidence section is non-empty or explicitly noted

[ ] All conflicting information is presented side-by-side, not resolved by choosing one

[ ] All information gaps are explicitly labeled

[ ] No statistics or citations were fabricated

[ ] Confidence levels are assigned to all major findings

[ ] One-page summary card is included

[ ] Report follows the template structure

Important Rules

1. No fabrication: If data doesn't exist, say so. Never invent statistics, quotes, or citations. 2. No false certainty: Do not present uncertain findings as definitive. 3. Counterevidence is mandatory: A report without counterevidence is incomplete. 4. Conflicting sources must coexist: Do not silently pick one side. 5. Credibility must be visible: Every claim should be traceable to a rated source.