azaion/detections-semantic
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/azaion/detections-semantic.git synced 2026-04-23 05:26:37 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source 
Made-with: Cursor
This commit is contained in:
Oleksandr Bezdieniezhnykh
2026-03-26 00:20:30 +02:00
commit 8e2ecf50fd
144 changed files with 19781 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.cursor/skills/research/SKILL.md
+708
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,708 @@
---
name: deep-research
description: |
Deep Research Methodology (8-Step Method) with two execution modes:
- Mode A (Initial Research): Assess acceptance criteria, then research problem and produce solution draft
- Mode B (Solution Assessment): Assess existing solution draft for weak points and produce revised draft
Supports project mode (_docs/ structure) and standalone mode (@file.md).
Auto-detects research mode based on existing solution_draft files.
Trigger phrases:
- "research", "deep research", "deep dive", "in-depth analysis"
- "research this", "investigate", "look into"
- "assess solution", "review solution draft"
- "comparative analysis", "concept comparison", "technical comparison"
category: build
tags: [research, analysis, solution-design, comparison, decision-support]
---
# Deep Research (8-Step Method)
Transform vague topics raised by users into high-quality, deliverable research reports through a systematic methodology. Operates in two modes: **Initial Research** (produce new solution draft) and **Solution Assessment** (assess and revise existing draft).
## Core Principles
- **Conclusions come from mechanism comparison, not "gut feelings"**
- **Pin down the facts first, then reason**
- **Prioritize authoritative sources: L1 > L2 > L3 > L4**
- **Intermediate results must be saved for traceability and reuse**
- **Ask, don't assume** — when any aspect of the problem, criteria, or restrictions is unclear, STOP and ask the user before proceeding
## Context Resolution
Determine the operating mode based on invocation before any other logic runs.
**Project mode** (no explicit input file provided):
- INPUT_DIR: `_docs/00_problem/`
- OUTPUT_DIR: `_docs/01_solution/`
- RESEARCH_DIR: `_docs/00_research/`
- All existing guardrails, mode detection, and draft numbering apply as-is.
**Standalone mode** (explicit input file provided, e.g. `/research @some_doc.md`):
- INPUT_FILE: the provided file (treated as problem description)
- OUTPUT_DIR: `_standalone/01_solution/`
- RESEARCH_DIR: `_standalone/00_research/`
- Guardrails relaxed: only INPUT_FILE must exist and be non-empty
- `restrictions.md` and `acceptance_criteria.md` are optional — warn if absent, proceed if user confirms
- Mode detection uses OUTPUT_DIR for `solution_draft*.md` scanning
- Draft numbering works the same, scoped to OUTPUT_DIR
- **Final step**: after all research is complete, move INPUT_FILE into `_standalone/`
Announce the detected mode and resolved paths to the user before proceeding.
## Project Integration
### Prerequisite Guardrails (BLOCKING)
Before any research begins, verify the input context exists. **Do not proceed if guardrails fail.**
**Project mode:**
1. Check INPUT_DIR exists — **STOP if missing**, ask user to create it and provide problem files
2. Check `problem.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
3. Check `restrictions.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
4. Check `acceptance_criteria.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
5. Check `input_data/` in INPUT_DIR exists and contains at least one file — **STOP if missing**
6. Read **all** files in INPUT_DIR to ground the investigation in the project context
7. Create OUTPUT_DIR and RESEARCH_DIR if they don't exist
**Standalone mode:**
1. Check INPUT_FILE exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
2. Warn if no `restrictions.md` or `acceptance_criteria.md` were provided alongside INPUT_FILE — proceed if user confirms
3. Create OUTPUT_DIR and RESEARCH_DIR if they don't exist
### Mode Detection
After guardrails pass, determine the execution mode:
1. Scan OUTPUT_DIR for files matching `solution_draft*.md`
2. **No matches found** → **Mode A: Initial Research**
3. **Matches found** → **Mode B: Solution Assessment** (use the highest-numbered draft as input)
4. **User override**: if the user explicitly says "research from scratch" or "initial research", force Mode A regardless of existing drafts
Inform the user which mode was detected and confirm before proceeding.
### Solution Draft Numbering
All final output is saved as `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` with a 2-digit zero-padded number:
1. Scan existing files in OUTPUT_DIR matching `solution_draft*.md`
2. Extract the highest existing number
3. Increment by 1
4. Zero-pad to 2 digits (e.g., `01`, `02`, ..., `10`, `11`)
Example: if `solution_draft01.md` through `solution_draft10.md` exist, the next output is `solution_draft11.md`.
### Working Directory & Intermediate Artifact Management
#### Directory Structure
At the start of research, **must** create a working directory under RESEARCH_DIR:
```
RESEARCH_DIR/
├── 00_ac_assessment.md # Mode A Phase 1 output: AC & restrictions assessment
├── 00_question_decomposition.md # Step 0-1 output
├── 01_source_registry.md # Step 2 output: all consulted source links
├── 02_fact_cards.md # Step 3 output: extracted facts
├── 03_comparison_framework.md # Step 4 output: selected framework and populated data
├── 04_reasoning_chain.md # Step 6 output: fact → conclusion reasoning
├── 05_validation_log.md # Step 7 output: use-case validation results
└── raw/ # Raw source archive (optional)
├── source_1.md
└── source_2.md
```
### Save Timing & Content
| Step | Save immediately after completion | Filename |
|------|-----------------------------------|----------|
| Mode A Phase 1 | AC & restrictions assessment tables | `00_ac_assessment.md` |
| Step 0-1 | Question type classification + sub-question list | `00_question_decomposition.md` |
| Step 2 | Each consulted source link, tier, summary | `01_source_registry.md` |
| Step 3 | Each fact card (statement + source + confidence) | `02_fact_cards.md` |
| Step 4 | Selected comparison framework + initial population | `03_comparison_framework.md` |
| Step 6 | Reasoning process for each dimension | `04_reasoning_chain.md` |
| Step 7 | Validation scenarios + results + review checklist | `05_validation_log.md` |
| Step 8 | Complete solution draft | `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` |
### Save Principles
1. **Save immediately**: Write to the corresponding file as soon as a step is completed; don't wait until the end
2. **Incremental updates**: Same file can be updated multiple times; append or replace new content
3. **Preserve process**: Keep intermediate files even after their content is integrated into the final report
4. **Enable recovery**: If research is interrupted, progress can be recovered from intermediate files
## Execution Flow
### 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:
- How realistic are the acceptance criteria for this specific domain?
- How critical is each criterion?
- What domain-specific acceptance criteria are we missing?
- Impact of each criterion value on the whole system quality
- Cost/budget implications of each criterion
- Timeline implications — how long would it take to meet each criterion
4. Research restrictions:
- Are the restrictions realistic?
- Should any be tightened or relaxed?
- Are there additional restrictions we should add?
5. Verify findings with authoritative sources (official docs, papers, benchmarks)
**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:
```markdown
# 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
2. Research the problem thoroughly — all possible ways to solve it, split into components
3. For each component, research all possible solutions and find the most efficient state-of-the-art approaches
4. Verify that suggested tools/libraries actually exist and work as described
5. Include security considerations in each component analysis
6. 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
---
### Mode B: Solution Assessment
Triggered when `solution_draft*.md` files exist in OUTPUT_DIR.
**Role**: Professional software architect
Full 8-step research methodology applied to assessing and improving an existing solution draft.
**Input**: All files from INPUT_DIR + the latest (highest-numbered) `solution_draft##.md` from OUTPUT_DIR
**Task** (drives the 8-step engine):
1. Read the existing solution draft thoroughly
2. Research in internet — identify all potential weak points and problems
3. Identify security weak points and vulnerabilities
4. Identify performance bottlenecks
5. Address these problems and find ways to solve them
6. Based on findings, form a new solution draft in the same format
**📁 Save action**: Write `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` (incremented) using template: `templates/solution_draft_mode_b.md`
**Optional follow-up**: After Mode B completes, the user can request Phase 3 (Tech Stack Consolidation) or Phase 4 (Security Deep Dive) using the revised draft. These phases work identically to their Mode A descriptions above.
## Escalation Rules
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Unclear problem boundaries | **ASK user** |
| Ambiguous acceptance criteria values | **ASK user** |
| Missing context files (`security_approach.md`, `input_data/`) | **ASK user** what they have |
| Conflicting restrictions | **ASK user** which takes priority |
| Technology choice with multiple valid options | **ASK user** |
| Contradictions between input files | **ASK user** |
| Missing acceptance criteria or restrictions files | **WARN user**, ask whether to proceed |
| File naming within research artifacts | PROCEED |
| Source tier classification | PROCEED |
## Trigger Conditions
When the user wants to:
- Deeply understand a concept/technology/phenomenon
- Compare similarities and differences between two or more things
- Gather information and evidence for a decision
- Assess or improve an existing solution draft
**Keywords**:
- "deep research", "deep dive", "in-depth analysis"
- "research this", "investigate", "look into"
- "assess solution", "review draft", "improve solution"
- "comparative analysis", "concept comparison", "technical comparison"
**Differentiation from other Skills**:
- Needs a **visual knowledge graph** → use `research-to-diagram`
- Needs **written output** (articles/tutorials) → use `wsy-writer`
- Needs **material organization** → use `material-to-markdown`
- Needs **research + solution draft** → use this Skill
## Research Engine (8-Step Method)
The 8-step method is the core research engine used by both modes. Steps 0-1 and Step 8 have mode-specific behavior; Steps 2-7 are identical regardless of mode.
### Step 0: Question Type Classification
First, classify the research question type and select the corresponding strategy:
| Question Type | Core Task | Focus Dimensions |
|---------------|-----------|------------------|
| **Concept Comparison** | Build comparison framework | Mechanism differences, applicability boundaries |
| **Decision Support** | Weigh trade-offs | Cost, risk, benefit |
| **Trend Analysis** | Map evolution trajectory | History, driving factors, predictions |
| **Problem Diagnosis** | Root cause analysis | Symptoms, causes, evidence chain |
| **Knowledge Organization** | Systematic structuring | Definitions, classifications, relationships |
**Mode-specific classification**:
| Mode / Phase | Typical Question Type |
|--------------|----------------------|
| Mode A Phase 1 | Knowledge Organization + Decision Support |
| Mode A Phase 2 | Decision Support |
| Mode B | Problem Diagnosis + Decision Support |
### Step 0.5: Novelty Sensitivity Assessment (BLOCKING)
Before starting research, assess the novelty sensitivity of the question (Critical/High/Medium/Low). This determines source time windows and filtering strategy.
**For full classification table, critical-domain rules, trigger words, and assessment template**: Read `references/novelty-sensitivity.md`
Key principle: Critical-sensitivity topics (AI/LLMs, blockchain) require sources within 6 months, mandatory version annotations, cross-validation from 2+ sources, and direct verification of official download pages.
**📁 Save action**: Append timeliness assessment to the end of `00_question_decomposition.md`
---
### Step 1: Question Decomposition & Boundary Definition
**Mode-specific sub-questions**:
**Mode A Phase 2** (Initial Research — Problem & Solution):
- "What existing/competitor solutions address this problem?"
- "What are the component parts of this problem?"
- "For each component, what are the state-of-the-art solutions?"
- "What are the security considerations per component?"
- "What are the cost implications of each approach?"
**Mode B** (Solution Assessment):
- "What are the weak points and potential problems in the existing draft?"
- "What are the security vulnerabilities in the proposed architecture?"
- "Where are the performance bottlenecks?"
- "What solutions exist for each identified issue?"
**General sub-question patterns** (use when applicable):
- **Sub-question A**: "What is X and how does it work?" (Definition & mechanism)
- **Sub-question B**: "What are the dimensions of relationship/difference between X and Y?" (Comparative analysis)
- **Sub-question C**: "In what scenarios is X applicable/inapplicable?" (Boundary conditions)
- **Sub-question D**: "What are X's development trends/best practices?" (Extended analysis)
**⚠️ Research Subject Boundary Definition (BLOCKING - must be explicit)**:
When decomposing questions, you must explicitly define the **boundaries of the research subject**:
| Dimension | Boundary to define | Example |
|-----------|--------------------|---------|
| **Population** | Which group is being studied? | University students vs K-12 vs vocational students vs all students |
| **Geography** | Which region is being studied? | Chinese universities vs US universities vs global |
| **Timeframe** | Which period is being studied? | Post-2020 vs full historical picture |
| **Level** | Which level is being studied? | Undergraduate vs graduate vs vocational |
**Common mistake**: User asks about "university classroom issues" but sources include policies targeting "K-12 students" — mismatched target populations will invalidate the entire research.
**📁 Save action**:
1. Read all files from INPUT_DIR to ground the research in the project context
2. Create working directory `RESEARCH_DIR/`
3. Write `00_question_decomposition.md`, including:
- Original question
- Active mode (A Phase 2 or B) and rationale
- Summary of relevant problem context from INPUT_DIR
- Classified question type and rationale
- **Research subject boundary definition** (population, geography, timeframe, level)
- List of decomposed sub-questions
4. Write TodoWrite to track progress
### Step 2: Source Tiering & Authority Anchoring
Tier sources by authority, **prioritize primary sources** (L1 > L2 > L3 > L4). Conclusions must be traceable to L1/L2; L3/L4 serve as supplementary and validation.
**For full tier definitions, search strategies, community mining steps, and source registry templates**: Read `references/source-tiering.md`
**Tool Usage**:
- Use `WebSearch` for broad searches; `WebFetch` to read specific pages
- Use the `context7` MCP server (`resolve-library-id` then `get-library-docs`) for up-to-date library/framework documentation
- Always cross-verify training data claims against live sources for facts that may have changed (versions, APIs, deprecations, security advisories)
- When citing web sources, include the URL and date accessed
**📁 Save action**:
For each source consulted, **immediately** append to `01_source_registry.md` using the entry template from `references/source-tiering.md`.
### Step 3: Fact Extraction & Evidence Cards
Transform sources into **verifiable fact cards**:
```markdown
## Fact Cards
### Fact 1
- **Statement**: [specific fact description]
- **Source**: [link/document section]
- **Confidence**: High/Medium/Low
### Fact 2
...
```
**Key discipline**:
- Pin down facts first, then reason
- Distinguish "what officials said" from "what I infer"
- When conflicting information is found, annotate and preserve both sides
- Annotate confidence level:
- ✅ High: Explicitly stated in official documentation
- ⚠️ Medium: Mentioned in official blog but not formally documented
- ❓ Low: Inference or from unofficial sources
**📁 Save action**:
For each extracted fact, **immediately** append to `02_fact_cards.md`:
```markdown
## Fact #[number]
- **Statement**: [specific fact description]
- **Source**: [Source #number] [link]
- **Phase**: [Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Assessment]
- **Target Audience**: [which group this fact applies to, inherited from source or further refined]
- **Confidence**: ✅/⚠️/❓
- **Related Dimension**: [corresponding comparison dimension]
```
**⚠️ Target audience in fact statements**:
- If a fact comes from a "partially overlapping" or "reference only" source, the statement **must explicitly annotate the applicable scope**
- Wrong: "The Ministry of Education banned phones in classrooms" (doesn't specify who)
- Correct: "The Ministry of Education banned K-12 students from bringing phones into classrooms (does not apply to university students)"
### Step 4: Build Comparison/Analysis Framework
Based on the question type, select fixed analysis dimensions. **For dimension lists** (General, Concept Comparison, Decision Support): Read `references/comparison-frameworks.md`
**📁 Save action**:
Write to `03_comparison_framework.md`:
```markdown
# Comparison Framework
## Selected Framework Type
[Concept Comparison / Decision Support / ...]
## Selected Dimensions
1. [Dimension 1]
2. [Dimension 2]
...
## Initial Population
| Dimension | X | Y | Factual Basis |
|-----------|---|---|---------------|
| [Dimension 1] | [description] | [description] | Fact #1, #3 |
| ... | | | |
```
### Step 5: Reference Point Baseline Alignment
Ensure all compared parties have clear, consistent definitions:
**Checklist**:
- [ ] Is the reference point's definition stable/widely accepted?
- [ ] Does it need verification, or can domain common knowledge be used?
- [ ] Does the reader's understanding of the reference point match mine?
- [ ] Are there ambiguities that need to be clarified first?
### Step 6: Fact-to-Conclusion Reasoning Chain
Explicitly write out the "fact → comparison → conclusion" reasoning process:
```markdown
## Reasoning Process
### Regarding [Dimension Name]
1. **Fact confirmation**: According to [source], X's mechanism is...
2. **Compare with reference**: While Y's mechanism is...
3. **Conclusion**: Therefore, the difference between X and Y on this dimension is...
```
**Key discipline**:
- Conclusions come from mechanism comparison, not "gut feelings"
- Every conclusion must be traceable to specific facts
- Uncertain conclusions must be annotated
**📁 Save action**:
Write to `04_reasoning_chain.md`:
```markdown
# Reasoning Chain
## Dimension 1: [Dimension Name]
### Fact Confirmation
According to [Fact #X], X's mechanism is...
### Reference Comparison
While Y's mechanism is... (Source: [Fact #Y])
### Conclusion
Therefore, the difference between X and Y on this dimension is...
### Confidence
✅/⚠️/❓ + rationale
---
## Dimension 2: [Dimension Name]
...
```
### Step 7: Use-Case Validation (Sanity Check)
Validate conclusions against a typical scenario:
**Validation questions**:
- Based on my conclusions, how should this scenario be handled?
- Is that actually the case?
- Are there counterexamples that need to be addressed?
**Review checklist**:
- [ ] Are draft conclusions consistent with Step 3 fact cards?
- [ ] Are there any important dimensions missed?
- [ ] Is there any over-extrapolation?
- [ ] Are conclusions actionable/verifiable?
**📁 Save action**:
Write to `05_validation_log.md`:
```markdown
# Validation Log
## Validation Scenario
[Scenario description]
## Expected Based on Conclusions
If using X: [expected behavior]
If using Y: [expected behavior]
## Actual Validation Results
[actual situation]
## Counterexamples
[yes/no, describe if yes]
## Review Checklist
- [x] Draft conclusions consistent with fact cards
- [x] No important dimensions missed
- [x] No over-extrapolation
- [ ] Issue found: [if any]
## Conclusions Requiring Revision
[if any]
```
### Step 8: Deliverable Formatting
Make the output **readable, traceable, and actionable**.
**📁 Save action**:
Integrate all intermediate artifacts. Write to `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` using the appropriate output template based on active mode:
- Mode A: `templates/solution_draft_mode_a.md`
- Mode B: `templates/solution_draft_mode_b.md`
Sources to integrate:
- Extract background from `00_question_decomposition.md`
- Reference key facts from `02_fact_cards.md`
- Organize conclusions from `04_reasoning_chain.md`
- Generate references from `01_source_registry.md`
- Supplement with use cases from `05_validation_log.md`
- For Mode A: include AC assessment from `00_ac_assessment.md`
## Solution Draft Output Templates
### Mode A: Initial Research Output
Use template: `templates/solution_draft_mode_a.md`
### Mode B: Solution Assessment Output
Use template: `templates/solution_draft_mode_b.md`
## Stakeholder Perspectives
Adjust content depth based on audience:
| Audience | Focus | Detail Level |
|----------|-------|--------------|
| **Decision-makers** | Conclusions, risks, recommendations | Concise, emphasize actionability |
| **Implementers** | Specific mechanisms, how-to | Detailed, emphasize how to do it |
| **Technical experts** | Details, boundary conditions, limitations | In-depth, emphasize accuracy |
## Output Files
Default intermediate artifacts location: `RESEARCH_DIR/`
**Required files** (automatically generated through the process):
| File | Content | When Generated |
|------|---------|----------------|
| `00_ac_assessment.md` | AC & restrictions assessment (Mode A only) | After Phase 1 completion |
| `00_question_decomposition.md` | Question type, sub-question list | After Step 0-1 completion |
| `01_source_registry.md` | All source links and summaries | Continuously updated during Step 2 |
| `02_fact_cards.md` | Extracted facts and sources | Continuously updated during Step 3 |
| `03_comparison_framework.md` | Selected framework and populated data | After Step 4 completion |
| `04_reasoning_chain.md` | Fact → conclusion reasoning | After Step 6 completion |
| `05_validation_log.md` | Use-case validation and review | After Step 7 completion |
| `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` | Complete solution draft | After Step 8 completion |
| `OUTPUT_DIR/tech_stack.md` | Tech stack evaluation and decisions | After Phase 3 (optional) |
| `OUTPUT_DIR/security_analysis.md` | Threat model and security controls | After Phase 4 (optional) |
**Optional files**:
- `raw/*.md` - Raw source archives (saved when content is lengthy)
## Methodology Quick Reference Card
```
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Deep Research — Mode-Aware 8-Step Method │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CONTEXT: Resolve mode (project vs standalone) + set paths │
│ GUARDRAILS: Check INPUT_DIR/INPUT_FILE exists + required files │
│ MODE DETECT: solution_draft*.md in 01_solution? → A or B │
│ │
│ MODE A: Initial Research │
│ Phase 1: AC & Restrictions Assessment (BLOCKING) │
│ Phase 2: Full 8-step → solution_draft##.md │
│ Phase 3: Tech Stack Consolidation (OPTIONAL) → tech_stack.md │
│ Phase 4: Security Deep Dive (OPTIONAL) → security_analysis.md │
│ │
│ MODE B: Solution Assessment │
│ Read latest draft → Full 8-step → solution_draft##.md (N+1) │
│ Optional: Phase 3 / Phase 4 on revised draft │
│ │
│ 8-STEP ENGINE: │
│ 0. Classify question type → Select framework template │
│ 1. Decompose question → mode-specific sub-questions │
│ 2. Tier sources → L1 Official > L2 Blog > L3 Media > L4 │
│ 3. Extract facts → Each with source, confidence level │
│ 4. Build framework → Fixed dimensions, structured compare │
│ 5. Align references → Ensure unified definitions │
│ 6. Reasoning chain → Fact→Compare→Conclude, explicit │
│ 7. Use-case validation → Sanity check, prevent armchairing │
│ 8. Deliverable → solution_draft##.md (mode-specific format) │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Key discipline: Ask don't assume · Facts before reasoning │
│ Conclusions from mechanism, not gut feelings │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Usage Examples
For detailed execution flow examples (Mode A initial, Mode B assessment, standalone, force override): Read `references/usage-examples.md`
## Source Verifiability Requirements
Every cited piece of external information must be directly verifiable by the user. All links must be publicly accessible (annotate `[login required]` if not), citations must include exact section/page/timestamp, and unverifiable information must be annotated `[limited source]`. Full checklist in `references/quality-checklists.md`.
## Quality Checklist
Before completing the solution draft, run through the checklists in `references/quality-checklists.md`. This covers:
- General quality (L1/L2 support, verifiability, actionability)
- Mode A specific (AC assessment, competitor analysis, component tables, tech stack)
- Mode B specific (findings table, self-contained draft, performance column)
- Timeliness check for high-sensitivity domains (version annotations, cross-validation, community mining)
- Target audience consistency (boundary definition, source matching, fact card audience)
## Final Reply Guidelines
When replying to the user after research is complete:
**✅ Should include**:
- Active mode used (A or B) and which optional phases were executed
- One-sentence core conclusion
- Key findings summary (3-5 points)
- Path to the solution draft: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md`
- Paths to optional artifacts if produced: `tech_stack.md`, `security_analysis.md`
- If there are significant uncertainties, annotate points requiring further verification
**❌ Must not include**:
- Process file listings (e.g., `00_question_decomposition.md`, `01_source_registry.md`, etc.)
- Detailed research step descriptions
- Working directory structure display
**Reason**: Process files are for retrospective review, not for the user. The user cares about conclusions, not the process.