admin/.cursor/skills/research/steps/01_mode-a-initial-research.md

Mode A: Initial Research

Triggered when no solution_draft*.md files exist in OUTPUT_DIR, or when the user explicitly requests initial research.

Phase 1: AC & Restrictions Assessment (BLOCKING)

Role: Professional software architect

A focused preliminary research pass before the main solution research. The goal is to validate that the acceptance criteria and restrictions are realistic before designing a solution around them.

Input: All files from INPUT_DIR (or INPUT_FILE in standalone mode)

Task:

1. Read all problem context files thoroughly
2. ASK the user about every unclear aspect — do not assume:
   • Unclear problem boundaries → ask
   • Ambiguous acceptance criteria values → ask
   • Missing context (no security_approach.md, no input_data/) → ask what they have
   • Conflicting restrictions → ask which takes priority
3. Research in internet extensively — use multiple search queries per question, rephrase, and search from different angles:
   • How realistic are the acceptance criteria for this specific domain? Search for industry benchmarks, standards, and typical values
   • How critical is each criterion? Search for case studies where criteria were relaxed or tightened
   • What domain-specific acceptance criteria are we missing? Search for industry standards, regulatory requirements, and best practices in the specific domain
   • Impact of each criterion value on the whole system quality — search for research papers and engineering reports
   • Cost/budget implications of each criterion — search for pricing, total cost of ownership analyses, and comparable project budgets
   • Timeline implications — search for project timelines, development velocity reports, and comparable implementations
   • What do practitioners in this domain consider the most important criteria? Search forums, conference talks, and experience reports
4. Research restrictions from multiple perspectives:
   • Are the restrictions realistic? Search for comparable projects that operated under similar constraints
   • Should any be tightened or relaxed? Search for what constraints similar projects actually ended up with
   • Are there additional restrictions we should add? Search for regulatory, compliance, and safety requirements in this domain
   • What restrictions do practitioners wish they had defined earlier? Search for post-mortem reports and lessons learned
5. Verify findings with authoritative sources (official docs, papers, benchmarks) — each key finding must have at least 2 independent sources

Uses Steps 0-3 of the 8-step engine (question classification, decomposition, source tiering, fact extraction) scoped to AC and restrictions assessment.

Save action: Write RESEARCH_DIR/00_ac_assessment.md with format:

# Acceptance Criteria Assessment

## Acceptance Criteria

| Criterion | Our Values | Researched Values | Cost/Timeline Impact | Status |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|---------------------|--------|
| [name] | [current] | [researched range] | [impact] | Added / Modified / Removed |

## Restrictions Assessment

| Restriction | Our Values | Researched Values | Cost/Timeline Impact | Status |
|-------------|-----------|-------------------|---------------------|--------|
| [name] | [current] | [researched range] | [impact] | Added / Modified / Removed |

## Key Findings
[Summary of critical findings]

## Sources
[Key references used]

BLOCKING: Present the AC assessment tables to the user. Wait for confirmation or adjustments before proceeding to Phase 2. The user may update acceptance_criteria.md or restrictions.md based on findings.

---

Phase 2: Problem Research & Solution Draft

Role: Professional researcher and software architect

Full 8-step research methodology. Produces the first solution draft.

Input: All files from INPUT_DIR (possibly updated after Phase 1) + Phase 1 artifacts

Task (drives the 8-step engine):

1. Research existing/competitor solutions for similar problems — search broadly across industries and adjacent domains, not just the obvious competitors
2. Research the problem thoroughly — all possible ways to solve it, split into components; search for how different fields approach analogous problems
3. For each component, research all possible solutions and find the most efficient state-of-the-art approaches — use multiple query variants and perspectives from Step 1
4. For each promising approach, search for real-world deployment experience: success stories, failure reports, lessons learned, and practitioner opinions
5. Search for contrarian viewpoints — who argues against the common approaches and why? What failure modes exist?
6. Verify that suggested tools/libraries actually exist and work as described — check official repos, latest releases, and community health (stars, recent commits, open issues)
7. Include security considerations in each component analysis
8. Provide rough cost estimates for proposed solutions

Be concise in formulating. The fewer words, the better, but do not miss any important details.

Save action: Write OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md using template: templates/solution_draft_mode_a.md

---

Phase 3: Tech Stack Consolidation (OPTIONAL)

Role: Software architect evaluating technology choices

Focused synthesis step — no new 8-step cycle. Uses research already gathered in Phase 2 to make concrete technology decisions.

Input: Latest solution_draft##.md from OUTPUT_DIR + all files from INPUT_DIR

Task:

1. Extract technology options from the solution draft's component comparison tables
2. Score each option against: fitness for purpose, maturity, security track record, team expertise, cost, scalability
3. Produce a tech stack summary with selection rationale
4. Assess risks and learning requirements per technology choice

Save action: Write OUTPUT_DIR/tech_stack.md with:

• Requirements analysis (functional, non-functional, constraints)
• Technology evaluation tables (language, framework, database, infrastructure, key libraries) with scores
• Tech stack summary block
• Risk assessment and learning requirements tables

---

Phase 4: Security Deep Dive (OPTIONAL)

Role: Security architect

Focused analysis step — deepens the security column from the solution draft into a proper threat model and controls specification.

Input: Latest solution_draft##.md from OUTPUT_DIR + security_approach.md from INPUT_DIR + problem context

Task:

1. Build threat model: asset inventory, threat actors, attack vectors
2. Define security requirements and proposed controls per component (with risk level)
3. Summarize authentication/authorization, data protection, secure communication, and logging/monitoring approach

Save action: Write OUTPUT_DIR/security_analysis.md with:

• Threat model (assets, actors, vectors)
• Per-component security requirements and controls table
• Security controls summary