# Conducting Research

> Conducts research. Use when asked to research, investigate, explore, look into a topic, compare options, learn about an unfamiliar domain, or understand current state.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-isvlasov-rageatc-oss-conducting-research`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [isvlasov](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/isvlasov)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [isvlasov](https://github.com/isvlasov)
- **Source:** https://github.com/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/tree/main/plugins/rageatc-core-oss/skills/conducting-research

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-isvlasov-rageatc-oss-conducting-research
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Conducting Research

## Purpose

Enable systematic, thorough research that produces reliable insights while avoiding common pitfalls like superficial understanding, poor source selection, or getting lost in irrelevant details.

## When to Use

Use this Skill when:
- User asks to "research", "investigate", "explore", "understand deeply", "look into", "compare", "learn about", or "find out" something
- User needs to choose between multiple options or alternatives
- Claude needs to build knowledge about an unfamiliar topic, system, or domain
- User wants to evaluate or compare multiple options
- Claude needs to find authoritative information about current technologies, methods, or concepts
- User asks questions that require synthesis from multiple sources
- Claude is uncertain about something and needs to validate assumptions
- The task requires going beyond training knowledge to find current or specialized information

## Required Inputs

Before starting research, clarify:

1. **Research question**: What specifically needs to be understood?
2. **Scope**: How broad or narrow should the investigation be?
3. **Purpose**: How will this research be used? (Informs depth and format)
4. **Constraints**: Time limits, preferred sources, depth requirements
5. **Success criteria**: What would make the research "complete enough"?

If any of these are unclear, ask the user before proceeding.

## Outputs Produced

Research typically produces one or more of the following deliverables:

1. **Research summary**: Concise answer to the research question with key findings and takeaways
2. **Detailed findings report**: Comprehensive analysis organized by theme or sub-question, with evidence and source citations
3. **Comparison table or matrix**: For evaluative research comparing multiple options across key dimensions
4. **Recommendation with rationale**: When research informs a decision, includes pros/cons and reasoning
5. **Annotated source list**: Bibliography of consulted sources with quality ratings and summaries
6. **Research notes**: Structured notes documenting the investigation process, organized by sub-topic

Adapt output format to user needs and stated purpose. For quick investigations, a summary may suffice. For complex decisions, provide detailed findings with comprehensive analysis.

## Research Workflow

### Phase 1: Define and Frame

**Goal**: Create a clear research plan

**Checkpoint**: Research plan documented with clear question, scope, and success criteria

1. **Articulate the core question**
   - Write it explicitly as a question or statement
   - Break complex questions into sub-questions
   - Identify assumptions that need validation

2. **Set boundaries**
   - Define what's in scope vs out of scope
   - Establish time constraints
   - Determine required depth level (overview vs deep dive)

3. **Identify success criteria**
   - What specific knowledge gaps need to be filled?
   - What decisions or actions will this research enable?
   - How will you know when you have enough information?

**Example:**
```
Research question: Should we use PostgreSQL or MongoDB?

Sub-questions:
- What are the key differences in data models?
- What are performance characteristics for our use case?
- What are operational complexity differences?
- What does the ecosystem look like for each?

Scope: Focus on web application use cases, not data warehouse/analytics
Success criteria: Clear recommendation with 3-5 key decision factors
```

### Phase 2: Source Identification and Evaluation

**Goal**: Find reliable, relevant information sources

**Checkpoint**: At least 3 high-quality sources identified and evaluated for authority, recency, accuracy, bias, and relevance

#### Finding Sources

Start with high-quality sources and expand as needed:

1. **Primary sources** (highest reliability):
   - Official documentation
   - Research papers and academic publications
   - Primary data sources
   - Official project repositories and changelogs

2. **Secondary sources** (good for context):
   - Established technical books and guides
   - Well-maintained tutorial sites
   - Expert blog posts (verify expertise)
   - Reputable news and analysis sites

3. **Community sources** (useful but verify):
   - Stack Overflow (for specific problems)
   - Reddit/HN discussions (for opinions and experiences)
   - GitHub issues and discussions
   - Conference talks and presentations

#### Evaluating Source Quality

For each source, ask:

**Authority**:
- Who wrote this? What are their credentials?
- Is this an official source or third-party?
- Is the author/organization recognized in the field?

**Recency**:
- When was this published/updated?
- Is this information still current?
- For fast-moving fields, prioritize recent sources

**Accuracy**:
- Does this cite other reliable sources?
- Can you verify key claims elsewhere?
- Are there obvious errors or inconsistencies?

**Bias**:
- Does the author have conflicts of interest?
- Is this promotional material disguised as neutral content?
- Are alternative viewpoints acknowledged?

**Relevance**:
- Does this directly address your research question?
- Is the context similar to your use case?
- Is the depth appropriate for your needs?

#### Red Flags (Lower Source Priority)

- No author attribution or anonymous content
- Heavy promotional language
- Outdated information (especially for technology)
- No citations or references
- Conflicts with multiple other reliable sources
- Highly opinionated without evidence
- AI-generated content without expert review

#### Source Strategy by Research Type

**Technology/tools evaluation**:
- Start with official docs
- Check recent comparisons from recognized tech sites
- Look for production experience reports
- Verify with benchmarks from neutral parties

**Concept understanding**:
- Begin with authoritative textbooks or courses
- Use academic papers for depth
- Cross-reference multiple explanations
- Find worked examples and visualizations

**Current events/trends**:
- Prioritize recent sources (last 6-12 months)
- Use multiple news sources
- Check official announcements
- Verify facts across sources

**Troubleshooting/problems**:
- Official documentation first
- GitHub issues for known problems
- Stack Overflow for solutions (verify dates)
- Expert blogs for complex issues

### Phase 3: Information Gathering

**Goal**: Systematically collect relevant information

**Checkpoint**: Key information extracted from multiple sources, organized in structured notes with questions and connections identified

#### Breadth-First vs Depth-First

**Use breadth-first when**:
- Starting research on unfamiliar topics
- Need to understand overall landscape
- Looking for connections between areas
- Want to avoid premature deep dives

**Process**:
1. Skim multiple sources for overview
2. Identify key themes and sub-topics
3. Map the territory before diving deep
4. Note interesting areas for later exploration

**Use depth-first when**:
- Have clear specific questions
- Need detailed understanding of one aspect
- Building on existing knowledge
- Following a specific thread of inquiry

**Process**:
1. Pick one specific aspect
2. Explore it thoroughly
3. Follow related links and references
4. Exhaust that thread before moving on

**Hybrid approach** (recommended for most research):
1. Start breadth-first to map territory
2. Identify 2-4 key areas
3. Go depth-first on each key area
4. Return to breadth if you discover gaps

#### Active Reading Strategies

Don't just passively consume information:

1. **Ask questions while reading**:
   - Does this make sense?
   - How does this connect to what I already know?
   - What evidence supports this claim?
   - What's missing or unclear?

2. **Take structured notes**:
   - Key facts and claims
   - Source information (for citations)
   - Your questions or uncertainties
   - Connections to other information

3. **Test your understanding**:
   - Can you explain it in your own words?
   - Can you think of examples?
   - What would you predict based on this?
   - What questions remain?

4. **Follow connections**:
   - Note references to related topics
   - Track citations to authoritative sources
   - Explore contradictions or disagreements
   - Look for patterns across sources

#### Research Notes Structure

Organize findings as you go:

```markdown
## Research Question: [Your question]

### Key Findings
- [Main insight 1] (Source: [link])
- [Main insight 2] (Source: [link])
- [Main insight 3] (Source: [link])

### Sources Consulted
1. [Source name] - [Quality: High/Medium/Low] - [Summary]
2. [Source name] - [Quality: High/Medium/Low] - [Summary]

### Detailed Notes

#### [Sub-topic 1]
[Your notes]

#### [Sub-topic 2]
[Your notes]

### Open Questions
- [What's still unclear]
- [What needs verification]

### Contradictions or Disagreements
- [Point A from source X vs Point B from source Y]
```

### Phase 4: Synthesis and Validation

**Goal**: Build coherent understanding and verify it

**Checkpoint**: Mental model constructed that explains findings, with key claims cross-referenced and assumptions validated

#### Creating Mental Models

Transform collected information into understanding:

1. **Identify core concepts**:
   - What are the fundamental building blocks?
   - What terminology is essential?
   - What relationships exist between concepts?

2. **Build structure**:
   - How do pieces fit together?
   - What's the hierarchy or flow?
   - What are the key processes or mechanisms?

3. **Find patterns**:
   - What themes emerge across sources?
   - Where is there consensus?
   - Where is there debate or uncertainty?

4. **Test coherence**:
   - Does your mental model explain the information?
   - Can you use it to answer related questions?
   - Where are the gaps or weak points?

#### Validation Checks

Before concluding research:

1. **Cross-reference key claims**:
   - Are important facts confirmed by multiple sources?
   - Have you verified claims that seem surprising?
   - Have you checked for recent changes or updates?

2. **Test edge cases**:
   - Does your understanding handle corner cases?
   - What about exceptions or special circumstances?
   - What are the limitations or boundaries?

3. **Challenge assumptions**:
   - What did you assume at the start?
   - Have those assumptions been validated?
   - What alternative interpretations exist?

4. **Check for gaps**:
   - What questions remain unanswered?
   - What areas did you skip?
   - What would an expert know that you don't?

### Phase 5: Determining Completion

**Goal**: Know when to stop researching

**Checkpoint**: Original research question can be answered clearly, with key claims verified and appropriate confidence level established

#### You Have Enough When:

✓ You can clearly answer the original research question
✓ Key claims are verified by multiple reliable sources
✓ You understand the topic well enough for the intended purpose
✓ You've explored the main areas and know what you don't know
✓ Additional research shows diminishing returns
✓ You can explain the topic to someone else coherently
✓ You've validated critical assumptions
✓ Remaining questions are edge cases or won't impact the decision/task

#### Keep Researching If:

✗ Core concepts are still unclear or confusing
✗ You're finding contradictory information you can't resolve
✗ Important sources haven't been consulted
✗ You're relying primarily on low-quality sources
✗ You can't answer basic questions about the topic
✗ Your understanding feels fragile or surface-level
✗ Critical assumptions haven't been tested
✗ You're uncertain about the reliability of key findings

#### Dealing with Time Constraints

When you must stop before reaching ideal completion:

1. **Acknowledge limitations**: Note what you didn't cover
2. **Prioritize certainty**: Distinguish what you know vs think vs don't know
3. **Flag risks**: Identify where gaps might cause problems
4. **Plan follow-up**: Note what to research next if needed

### Phase 6: Presenting Findings

**Goal**: Communicate research results effectively

**Checkpoint**: Findings presented in clear format appropriate to purpose, with sources cited and limitations acknowledged

#### Structure Your Presentation

Adapt format to audience and purpose, but generally include:

1. **Executive Summary** (for longer research):
   - Core answer to research question
   - 3-5 key takeaways
   - Main recommendation if applicable

2. **Context and Scope**:
   - What you researched and why
   - What's included and excluded
   - Any important constraints or limitations

3. **Main Findings**:
   - Organized by theme or sub-question
   - Evidence-backed claims
   - Clear logical flow

4. **Source Quality Note**:
   - Types of sources used
   - Confidence levels
   - Any concerns about source reliability

5. **Implications and Recommendations**:
   - What this means for the task/decision
   - Suggested actions
   - Trade-offs or considerations

6. **Open Questions** (if relevant):
   - What remains uncertain
   - What would benefit from further research
   - Known limitations

#### Citation Standards

Always cite sources appropriately:

- **Direct quotes**: Use quotation marks and cite source
- **Key facts or claims**: Include source reference
- **General knowledge**: Citation optional but good practice
- **Synthesis across sources**: Note which sources informed the synthesis

**Format**:
```
[Claim or statement] (Source: [Author/Site Name, URL])
```

## Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

### Pitfall 1: Superficial Understanding

**Symptoms**:
- Can repeat facts but can't explain concepts
- Struggle with "why" or "how" questions
- Understanding collapses with slight variations

**Prevention**:
- Test your understanding by explaining in your own words
- Try to apply knowledge to new examples
- Ask "why" and "how" questions actively
- Don't just collect facts; build mental models

### Pitfall 2: Getting Lost in Details

**Symptoms**:
- Spending excessive time on tangential topics
- Can't summarize main points
- Losing sight of original research question

**Prevention**:
- Periodically return to research question
- Set time limits for sub-topics
- Ask "Does this help answer my main question?"
- Take breaks to step back and assess

### Pitfall 3: Poor Source Quality

**Symptoms**:
- Relying on outdated information
- Using promotional material as neutral source
- Accepting claims without verification
- Missing authoritative sources

**Prevention**:
- Always evaluate source quality first
- Start with primary/official sources
- Cross-reference important claims
- Note source quality in your notes

### Pitfall 4: Confirmation Bias

**Symptoms**:
- Only seeking information that confirms initial hypothesis
- Dismissing contradictory evidence too quickly
- Stopping research when you find supporting evidence

**Prevention**:
- Actively seek disconfirming evidence
- Explore alternative viewpoints
- Ask "What would prove me wrong?"
- Consider multiple perspectives

### Pitfall 5: Missing Context

**Symptoms**:
- Understanding details but not bigger picture
- Missing important prerequisites
- Not recognizing when information is domain-specific

**Prevention**:
- Start with overview/introduction material
- Understand the broader field before diving deep
- Note what you're assuming as background
- Look for "prerequisite knowledge" sections

### Pitfall 6: Premature Conclusion

**Symptoms**:
- Stopping after first good source
- Accepting first explanation found
- Not validating key assumptions

**Prevention**:
- Consult multiple sources before concluding
- Verify important claims independently
- Use the completion checklist
- Ask "What might I be missing?"

## Examples

### Example 1: Good Research Approach

**Scenario**: User asks "Help me research whether to use REST or GraphQL for our API"

**Good approach**:

1. **Define scope**:
   - Research question: Which API approach is better for our use case?
   -

…

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [isvlasov](https://github.com/isvlasov)
- **Source:** [isvlasov/rageatc-oss](https://github.com/isvlasov/rageatc-oss)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-isvlasov-rageatc-oss-conducting-research
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/isvlasov
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.