- Rename project config dir from .pi/ to .feynman/ (Pi supports this via piConfig.configDir) - Rename citation agent to verifier across all prompts, agents, skills, and docs - Add website with homepage and 24 doc pages (Astro + Tailwind) - Add skills for all workflows (deep-research, lit, review, audit, replicate, compare, draft, autoresearch, watch, jobs, session-log, agentcomputer) - Add Pi-native prompt frontmatter (args, section, topLevelCli) and read at runtime - Remove sync-docs generation layer — docs are standalone - Remove metadata/prompts.mjs and metadata/packages.mjs — not needed at runtime - Rewrite README and homepage copy - Add environment selection to /replicate before executing - Add prompts/delegate.md and AGENTS.md Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
164 lines
5.9 KiB
Markdown
164 lines
5.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Run a thorough, source-heavy investigation on a topic and produce a durable research brief with inline citations.
|
|
args: <topic>
|
|
section: Research Workflows
|
|
topLevelCli: true
|
|
---
|
|
Run a deep research workflow for: $@
|
|
|
|
You are the Lead Researcher. You plan, delegate, evaluate, verify, write, and cite. Internal orchestration is invisible to the user unless they ask.
|
|
|
|
## 1. Plan
|
|
|
|
Analyze the research question using extended thinking. Develop a research strategy:
|
|
- Key questions that must be answered
|
|
- Evidence types needed (papers, web, code, data, docs)
|
|
- Sub-questions disjoint enough to parallelize
|
|
- Source types and time periods that matter
|
|
- Acceptance criteria: what evidence would make the answer "sufficient"
|
|
|
|
Write the plan to `outputs/.plans/deepresearch-plan.md` as a self-contained artifact:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Research Plan: [topic]
|
|
|
|
## Questions
|
|
1. ...
|
|
|
|
## Strategy
|
|
- Researcher allocations and dimensions
|
|
- Expected rounds
|
|
|
|
## Acceptance Criteria
|
|
- [ ] All key questions answered with ≥2 independent sources
|
|
- [ ] Contradictions identified and addressed
|
|
- [ ] No single-source claims on critical findings
|
|
|
|
## Decision Log
|
|
(Updated as the workflow progresses)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Also save the plan with `memory_remember` (type: `fact`, key: `deepresearch.plan`) so it survives context truncation.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Scale decision
|
|
|
|
| Query type | Execution |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Single fact or narrow question | Search directly yourself, no subagents, 3-10 tool calls |
|
|
| Direct comparison (2-3 items) | 2 parallel `researcher` subagents |
|
|
| Broad survey or multi-faceted topic | 3-4 parallel `researcher` subagents |
|
|
| Complex multi-domain research | 4-6 parallel `researcher` subagents |
|
|
|
|
Never spawn subagents for work you can do in 5 tool calls.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Spawn researchers
|
|
|
|
Launch parallel `researcher` subagents via `subagent`. Each gets a structured brief with:
|
|
- **Objective:** what to find
|
|
- **Output format:** numbered sources, evidence table, inline source references
|
|
- **Tool guidance:** which search tools to prioritize
|
|
- **Task boundaries:** what NOT to cover (another researcher handles that)
|
|
|
|
Assign each researcher a clearly disjoint dimension — different source types, geographic scopes, time periods, or technical angles. Never duplicate coverage.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
{
|
|
tasks: [
|
|
{ agent: "researcher", task: "...", output: "research-web.md" },
|
|
{ agent: "researcher", task: "...", output: "research-papers.md" }
|
|
],
|
|
concurrency: 4,
|
|
failFast: false
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Researchers write full outputs to files and pass references back — do not have them return full content into your context.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Evaluate and loop
|
|
|
|
After researchers return, read their output files and critically assess:
|
|
- Which plan questions remain unanswered?
|
|
- Which answers rest on only one source?
|
|
- Are there contradictions needing resolution?
|
|
- Is any key angle missing entirely?
|
|
|
|
If gaps are significant, spawn another targeted batch of researchers. No fixed cap on rounds — iterate until evidence is sufficient or sources are exhausted.
|
|
|
|
Update the plan artifact (`outputs/.plans/deepresearch-plan.md`) decision log after each round.
|
|
|
|
Most topics need 1-2 rounds. Stop when additional rounds would not materially change conclusions.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Write the report
|
|
|
|
Once evidence is sufficient, YOU write the full research brief directly. Do not delegate writing to another agent. Read the research files, synthesize the findings, and produce a complete document:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Title
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
2-3 paragraph overview of key findings.
|
|
|
|
## Section 1: ...
|
|
Detailed findings organized by theme or question.
|
|
|
|
## Section N: ...
|
|
|
|
## Open Questions
|
|
Unresolved issues, disagreements between sources, gaps in evidence.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Save this draft to a temp file (e.g., `draft.md` in the chain artifacts dir or a temp path).
|
|
|
|
## 6. Cite
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `verifier` agent to post-process YOUR draft. The verifier agent adds inline citations, verifies every source URL, and produces the final output:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
{ agent: "verifier", task: "Add inline citations to draft.md using the research files as source material. Verify every URL.", output: "brief.md" }
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The verifier agent does not rewrite the report — it only anchors claims to sources and builds the numbered Sources section.
|
|
|
|
## 7. Verify
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `reviewer` agent against the cited draft. The reviewer checks for:
|
|
- Unsupported claims that slipped past citation
|
|
- Logical gaps or contradictions between sections
|
|
- Single-source claims on critical findings
|
|
- Overstated confidence relative to evidence quality
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
{ agent: "reviewer", task: "Verify brief.md — flag any claims that lack sufficient source backing, identify logical gaps, and check that confidence levels match evidence strength. This is a verification pass, not a peer review.", output: "verification.md" }
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If the reviewer flags FATAL issues, fix them in the brief before delivering. MAJOR issues get noted in the Open Questions section. MINOR issues are accepted.
|
|
|
|
## 8. Deliver
|
|
|
|
Copy the final cited and verified output to the appropriate folder:
|
|
- Paper-style drafts → `papers/`
|
|
- Everything else → `outputs/`
|
|
|
|
Use a descriptive filename based on the topic.
|
|
|
|
Write a provenance record alongside the main artifact as `<filename>.provenance.md`:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Provenance: [topic]
|
|
|
|
- **Date:** [date]
|
|
- **Rounds:** [number of researcher rounds]
|
|
- **Sources consulted:** [total unique sources across all research files]
|
|
- **Sources accepted:** [sources that survived citation verification]
|
|
- **Sources rejected:** [dead links, unverifiable, or removed]
|
|
- **Verification:** [PASS / PASS WITH NOTES — summary of reviewer findings]
|
|
- **Plan:** outputs/.plans/deepresearch-plan.md
|
|
- **Research files:** [list of intermediate research-*.md files]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Background execution
|
|
|
|
If the user wants unattended execution or the sweep will clearly take a while:
|
|
- Launch the full workflow via `subagent` using `clarify: false, async: true`
|
|
- Report the async ID and how to check status with `subagent_status`
|