# Deep Research > Use when the founder asks for a deep-research briefing ("deep research this", "give me a full read on X"), OR before any research-backed deliverable — a blog post, newsletter, landing-page claim, market read, or strategic bet — where multiple viewpoints and fact-checked claims matter. Runs a 4-phase pipeline — parallel expert lenses → contradiction map → synthesized briefing → adversarial peer re… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-tkhribech-claude-founder-os-deep-research` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [tkhribech](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/tkhribech) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [tkhribech](https://github.com/tkhribech) - **Source:** https://github.com/tkhribech/claude-founder-os/tree/main/skills-library/deep-research ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-tkhribech-claude-founder-os-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 — multi-lens, citation-verified briefings Turns one topic into a verified, multi-perspective briefing. It simulates several expert lenses on the topic, maps where they contradict each other, synthesizes one report, then adversarially peer-reviews its own output and **verifies every citation against its primary source** before delivering. The verification phase is the whole reason this exists — "never assume, always verify" encoded as a pipeline. Run the full pipeline end to end; do not shortcut a phase. This is deliberately heavier than a quick web lookup — reserve it for multi-angle or claim-heavy work, not for "what's the average price of X" (that's one search). ## Phase 0 — Scope the topic + build the panel 1. State your interpretation of the topic in one line and proceed (ask only if genuinely ambiguous in a way that changes the research). 2. **Build the panel from the business's stakeholders.** 4–5 lenses; the right set is: the demand side, the supply/operator side, the channel or market view, and ALWAYS a Skeptic. For Kiln & Co (the fictional pottery studio used throughout this repo) that's: **the Student** (who takes classes and worries about cost and skill progression), **the Studio Owner** (margins, kiln time, scheduling), **the Local-Market Analyst** (how nearby studios and hobby chains position and price), and **the Skeptic** (who thinks the obvious angle is overstated or could backfire). For broad-trend questions where business framing doesn't fit, use the classic research set: Practitioner, Academic, Skeptic, Economist, Historian. 3. Identify the reader's role so the actionable section can target it (default: the founder as decision-maker). 4. Tell the founder the pipeline is running — which panel, how many lenses — in one line. ## Phase 1 — Expert lenses (parallel agents) Spawn all lens agents **in a single message** so they run concurrently. Each gets the same one-line topic frame plus its own lens persona, and this contract: > You are THE {LENS} for: {TOPIC} ({TOPIC_FRAME}). Do real web research from the places this stakeholder actually reads. Return EXACTLY: 1) CORE POSITION in 2 sentences. 2) STRONGEST EVIDENCE — 3–5 bullets, each with a concrete data point / quote / named source + URL. 3) THE ONE THING only this stakeholder would say. Cite real sources with URLs. Under 400 words. Example, fully in-fiction: for the topic "should Kiln & Co add a kids' summer camp," the Student lens researches what hobby-class customers actually search and complain about; the Studio Owner lens researches operating economics of youth programs; the Local-Market lens researches how nearby art programs position and price camps; the Skeptic hunts for failed-program post-mortems and liability traps. When all lenses return, post a 2–3 line note in chat: where they converge, and the sharpest disagreement. Keep the raw briefs out of chat. ## Phase 2 — Map the contradictions (inline, no agents) Working only from the returned briefs: 1) **direct conflicts** — name the specific clashing claims; 2) **strongest vs weakest evidence** — rank by hierarchy (peer-reviewed causal > official/market data > operator anecdote > analogy), say why; 3) **the resolving question** — the single empirical question that would settle the biggest contradiction; 4) **universal agreement** — what every lens confirms, even opponents (the likely-true load-bearing finding); 5) **the blind spot** — what NO lens addressed (becomes the "missing lens" and the frontier question). ## Phase 3 — Synthesize the briefing Write one self-contained report (markdown is fine; a styled HTML template if your workspace has one) containing, in order: **60-second summary** (settled fact first, then contested interpretation) · **key findings ranked by reliability**, each with a 1–10 confidence score and supported-by/challenged-by notes from the contradiction map · **the hidden connection** only visible across all lenses · **the missing lens** · **actionable moves** (3–6, concrete, targeted at the reader's role) · **claim-safety guide** (assert / caveat / avoid — filled after Phase 4) · **frontier question** · **references** with verification-status tags. Save to a dated file in the workspace's reports folder. ## Phase 4 — Adversarial peer review + verification (never skip) This is what separates a deep-research briefing from a normal report. **4a. Self-review (inline).** Score each finding 1–10 for reliability and justify. Name the weakest link and what would verify it. Bias check: which lens dominated the synthesis, what got underweighted. **4b. Verify every citation (parallel agents).** One agent per citation cluster (~4–6 agents), each instructed: > Independently verify a citation against its PRIMARY source. Be skeptical; do not trust secondary summaries. CLAIM: {claim + figure + named source}. Find the actual primary source; confirm or correct title/authors/venue/year/URL, the real figure as published, method and author-stated limits. For contested claims, find the strongest credible counter-source. Return VERDICT = CONFIRMED / PARTIALLY CONFIRMED (with corrections) / UNVERIFIED / FALSE, then the corrected one-line citation, then 2–4 specifics with the primary URL. Under 280 words. **4c. Apply corrections.** Fix wrong figures and mischaracterizations; downgrade confidence where evidence was thin; re-attribute single-survey stats honestly; fill a truthful verification banner (`N/N checked, X fabricated, Y corrected, Z demoted`) and the claim-safety guide from the verdicts. ## Output The report file path, the verification tally, the one universal finding, the frontier question, and the claim-safety summary (safe to assert vs. avoid) — tight, in chat. Anything the briefing clears for publication STILL passes the content gates before it ships. ## Guardrails - **Real research only.** Every citation traces to a real, fetched source. A figure that can't be verified gets demoted or cut, never papered over. - **The panel is author-built — disclose it in the report.** Convergence across lenses is a strong hypothesis, not field consensus. - **A report without Phase 4 is not a deliverable of this skill.** - Cost: ~9–11 agents per run is expected. Don't fan out wider than 5 lenses or one verifier per citation cluster. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [tkhribech](https://github.com/tkhribech) - **Source:** [tkhribech/claude-founder-os](https://github.com/tkhribech/claude-founder-os) - **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-tkhribech-claude-founder-os-deep-research - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/tkhribech - 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%.