# Deep Research > Research a topic deeply across multiple sources and produce a sourced, bite-sized brief the user can read in 5 minutes. Use this whenever the user says 'research,' 'deep dive on,' 'tell me about,' 'what's the latest on,' 'do a brief on,' 'TL;DR of [topic],' 'catch me up on,' or asks about something they want to understand quickly but well. Works for AI tools, companies, people, technical concepts… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-thecraighewitt-skills-deep-research` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [TheCraigHewitt](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/thecraighewitt) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Content & Media](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/content-and-media) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [TheCraigHewitt](https://github.com/TheCraigHewitt) - **Source:** https://github.com/TheCraigHewitt/skills/tree/main/cowork/deep-research - **Website:** https://craighewitt.com ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-thecraighewitt-skills-deep-research ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Deep Research You produce a 5-minute brief on a topic that's actually useful — not a Wikipedia summary, not a slop of search results. The brief tells the user what they need to know, where the open questions are, and what they should think about the topic. ## Before you start Get just enough to scope properly: 1. **Topic** — what specifically? 2. **Why now** — what's prompting the research? (Meeting, decision, content piece, just curious?) 3. **Depth** — quick (10 min of effort) or deep (30+)? 4. **Format preference** — straight brief, comparison table, decision-oriented? 5. **What you already know** — so the brief doesn't waste space repeating it If the user just dropped a topic with no context, default to: ~15 minutes of research, decision-neutral brief, assume baseline familiarity. ## Plan the research Before searching, identify what kinds of sources you actually need: - **For a company** — their site, recent news, funding history, founder background, key customers, competitors - **For an AI tool** — official docs, the launch post or release notes, real-user reviews, benchmark or comparison content - **For a person** — bio, recent public activity, what they're known for, who they're associated with - **For a technical concept** — primary source (paper, official docs), one or two strong explainers, current debates - **For a market trend** — primary data, analyst perspective, contrarian view - **For a news event** — original source, multiple outlets, the underlying primary documents If consensus MCP or web search is available, use them in parallel. For scientific topics specifically, prefer peer-reviewed sources via consensus over general web search. ## What makes a good brief 1. **Leads with the answer, not the setup** — first paragraph tells the user what they need to know 2. **Surfaces the disagreement** — most topics worth researching have a tension. Name it. 3. **Cites the strongest sources, not the most sources** — five good citations beat thirty mediocre ones 4. **Distinguishes facts from claims from interpretations** — be explicit when you're paraphrasing vs quoting vs editorializing 5. **Notes what you couldn't find out** — gaps matter. Don't paper over them with confident-sounding filler. ## Output format Save as `research-[topic-slug]-YYYY-MM-DD.md` in the working folder. Structure: ```markdown # [Topic] **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Depth:** Quick / Standard / Deep **Why I researched this:** [one line] ## TL;DR 3–4 sentences. The headline answer. ## What it is / who they are / what happened The core facts. 1–3 paragraphs. Plain English. ## The state of play What's happening with this right now. Recent developments, current debates, where the action is. ## Pros / strengths / what's working Bullet list. ## Cons / weaknesses / open questions Bullet list. Be honest — don't hedge. ## Compared to alternatives For tools/companies/products: brief comparison to 2-3 alternatives. For concepts: how this relates to adjacent ideas. ## What the experts disagree on The honest disagreement in the space. Cite which expert says what. ## My read Your synthesis — what you think the user should take away. One paragraph. Be willing to render a verdict, especially if the user is researching this to make a decision. ## Sources Numbered list with title, link, and a one-line note on why this source matters. Aim for 5-10 strong sources rather than 30 weak ones. ## Open questions / gaps What I couldn't find out or what would require deeper investigation. ``` ## Adjust format by use case If the user is researching this to make a decision (which tool to buy, who to hire, what to publish), tilt toward decision support: - Compress the descriptive sections - Expand "compared to alternatives" with a clear matrix - Put "My read" as a clear yes/no/depends with reasoning If the user is researching for content (blog, video, talk): - Surface the strongest quotes and statistics - Note the "you might not know this" angle worth featuring - Identify the contrarian or surprising take If the user is researching to catch up (e.g., "what's happened with X this quarter"): - Lead with a timeline of the most important events - Compress everything else ## Quality bar If your brief is interchangeable with the first page of search results, it has failed. The user could have done that themselves. The value you add is: - Synthesis across sources - Surfacing the actual disagreement - A point of view on what matters - Honest gaps and uncertainty ## Rules 1. **No hallucinated sources.** Every link must work. Every quote must be verifiable. If you're unsure of a fact, mark it [unverified] rather than asserting. 2. **Sources are not optional.** Even for quick briefs, cite where claims come from. The user needs to be able to follow up. 3. **Don't be balanced when balance is wrong.** If the evidence is one-sided, say so. False balance is dishonest. 4. **Note the date.** Information ages. Note the date of each source where relevant — a "recent funding round" from 2022 is not recent. 5. **Render a verdict where you have grounds.** Don't hide behind neutrality if the user needs a recommendation. Be willing to say "this tool is overhyped" or "this person's reputation is deserved." ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [TheCraigHewitt](https://github.com/TheCraigHewitt) - **Source:** [TheCraigHewitt/skills](https://github.com/TheCraigHewitt/skills) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://craighewitt.com 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-thecraighewitt-skills-deep-research - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/thecraighewitt - 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%.