潮汐调研框架

This skill should be used when the user requests a structured, in-depth research on a specific topic, industry, technology, product, market, person, organization, or any domain-specific subject. Trigger phrases include: "深度调研", "帮我研究一下", "做一份调研报告", "分析一下XX行业/市场/技术", "写一份研究报告", "deep research", "research report", "调研", "研究报告", "行业报告", "竞品分析", "market research", "技术调研", "可行性分析", "尽职调查". This skill guides a rigorous, multi-source, evidence-balanced research process that: - Defines research audience and objectives before starting - Decomposes the topic into structured dimensions - Gathers evidence from multiple sources with credibility ratings - Includes counterevidence and conflicting viewpoints - Flags information gaps honestly instead of fabricating - Delivers a structured report plus a one-page summary card

Deep Research Framework

A structured deep-research skill for producing rigorous, balanced, and actionable research reports on any topic.

Overview

This skill enforces a disciplined research methodology. It is NOT a simple "search and summarize" tool. It demands evidence quality control, counterevidence inclusion, and honest flagging of gaps.

Outputs:

1. Structured Research Report — full-depth analysis organized by dimensions
2. One-Page Summary Card — key findings, confidence levels, and action items

Phase 0 — Pre-Research Clarification

Before starting research, confirm these inputs from the user or infer them from context:

Input	Required	Default if absent
Research topic	Yes	—
Target audience	Recommended	"decision maker / general professional"
Key dimensions to focus on	Optional	Use standard dimension set (see references)
Time scope	Optional	"recent 1–3 years unless specified"
Depth level	Optional	"standard" (balanced breadth and depth)

If the topic is ambiguous, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding.

Phase 1 — Research Design

1.1 Define the Research Objective

State in 1–2 sentences: What question is this research answering, and what decision or understanding will it enable?

1.2 Define the Audience

State who will read this: their background, what they already know, and what they need to walk away with.

1.3 Scope and Constraints

• Time scope: Which period does the research cover?
• Geographic scope: Global? China? Specific region?
• Exclusions: What is explicitly out of scope?

1.4 Decompose into Research Dimensions

Break the topic into 4–7 dimensions. For each dimension:

• Write 2–4 key questions that need answering
• Assign a priority: Core / Supporting / Context

Use references/dimension-templates.md for standard dimension sets by research type (industry, technology, company, product, market).

Phase 2 — Multi-Source Research Execution

2.1 Source Strategy

For each dimension, gather from at least 2–3 distinct source types:

Source Type	Examples	Default Credibility
Primary data	Official reports, regulatory filings, academic papers	★★★★★
Industry reports	McKinsey, Gartner, IDC, CB Insights, Frost & Sullivan	★★★★
News & media	Reuters, Bloomberg, FT, 36kr, 财新, 虎嗅	★★★
Expert commentary	Interviews, conference talks, analyst notes	★★★
Community & forums	Reddit, Zhihu, GitHub Issues, industry forums	★★
AI-generated synthesis	LLM summaries without cited sources	★

See references/credibility-rubric.md for detailed credibility rating rules.

2.2 Search Execution

For each research dimension:

1. Formulate targeted search queries (try multiple angles)
2. Retrieve results using web_search or available tools
3. For each piece of evidence, record: claim, source, credibility rating, date

2.3 Counterevidence Requirement (MANDATORY)

For every major claim in the report, actively search for contradicting evidence:

• If counterevidence exists: include it alongside the main claim, labeled [反面证据]
• If no counterevidence found: note [未发现明显反面证据，可信度待验]
• NEVER omit counterevidence to make the report cleaner or more conclusive

2.4 Conflicting Information Handling

When two credible sources contradict each other:

• Present BOTH positions side-by-side
• Note the source, date, and credibility of each
• Do NOT pick a side unless evidence weight is clearly asymmetric
• Label the conflict: [矛盾信息 — 并列呈现]

2.5 Information Gap Flagging (MANDATORY)

When a key question cannot be answered from available sources:

• Mark it clearly: [信息不足 — 无法得出可靠结论]
• State what type of source would be needed to fill the gap
• NEVER fabricate data, statistics, or citations to fill gaps

Phase 3 — Synthesis and Analysis

3.1 Evidence Weighting

Synthesize findings dimension by dimension:

• Higher-credibility sources take precedence
• Recent data (within 12 months) takes precedence over older data
• Consensus across multiple independent sources strengthens confidence

3.2 Insight Generation

Go beyond summarizing to identify:

• Key patterns and trends
• Surprising or counterintuitive findings
• Implications for the research objective
• Open questions that remain after research

3.3 Confidence Levels

Assign a confidence level to each major finding:

Level	Meaning
高 (High)	Multiple independent ★★★★+ sources agree
中 (Medium)	Some evidence, limited cross-validation
低 (Low)	Single source, low credibility, or conflicting signals
未知 (Unknown)	Insufficient data, explicitly flagged

Phase 4 — Output Delivery

4.1 Full Research Report

Follow the template in assets/report-template.md. Structure:

1. 研究概览 — objective, audience, scope, date
2. 执行摘要 — 5–7 bullet key findings with confidence levels
3. 维度分析 — one section per dimension with:
   • Key findings
   • Supporting evidence (with source + credibility)
   • Counterevidence
   • Confidence level
   • Information gaps (if any)
4. 矛盾与争议 — consolidated list of conflicting information
5. 综合洞察 — cross-dimension synthesis and implications
6. 信息缺口清单 — all flagged gaps in one place
7. 参考资料 — all sources with credibility ratings

4.2 One-Page Summary Card

Follow the template in assets/summary-card-template.md. Deliver after the full report.

The card contains:

• Topic + audience + date (header)
• 3 most important findings (with confidence)
• 1 most important counterpoint
• 1 key uncertainty / gap
• Suggested next actions (if applicable)
• Overall research confidence score (High / Medium / Low)

Quality Checklist (self-check before delivery)

Before presenting the output, verify:

• Every major claim has a cited source with credibility rating
• Counterevidence section is non-empty or explicitly noted
• All conflicting information is presented side-by-side, not resolved by choosing one
• All information gaps are explicitly labeled
• No statistics or citations were fabricated
• Confidence levels are assigned to all major findings
• One-page summary card is included
• Report follows the template structure

Important Rules

1. No fabrication: If data doesn't exist, say so. Never invent statistics, quotes, or citations.
2. No false certainty: Do not present uncertain findings as definitive.
3. Counterevidence is mandatory: A report without counterevidence is incomplete.
4. Conflicting sources must coexist: Do not silently pick one side.
5. Credibility must be visible: Every claim should be traceable to a rated source.