---

name: research description: 'Answer one cited question: how code works, or whether a repeated pattern deserves a rule. Use when: asked how, why, or whether to enforce a pattern.' practices:

• pragmatic-programmer
• ddd-bounded-context hexagonal_role: driving-adapter consumes:
• research-question produces:
• research-report
• codebase-recon.v1
• pattern-mining.v1 context_rel: [] skill_api_version: 1 user-invocable: true metadata: capabilities: [research, codebase_recon, pattern_mining] effects: [write_research_report, write_recon_pack, write_pattern_evidence] canonical_status: canonical disposition: keep_specialist tier: execution dependencies: [] context: window: fork intent: mode: task sections: exclude:
  • HISTORY output_contract: cited answer; findings.json for ordinary durable reports; validated codebase-recon.v1 or pattern-mining.v1 for selected evidence modes

---

Research

Answer the caller's bounded question with cited evidence. Choose ordinary investigation, repository tracing or pattern evidence according to the question; these are optional modes, not a sequence. A quick answer needs no report file. Plan owns unified discovery and resumption when the question is part of shaping a change; return this cited answer to that existing intent without restarting its interview or taking over caller choices.

Evidence rules

• One lineage counts once. Copies, ports and repeated quotations of one upstream source are a single exemplar, however many files or reports carry them. Check provenance before counting instances as independent.
• Separate the invariant from the incidental. Align instances by their role in the behavior; name what must hold, what legitimately varies and what is incidental syntax. An instance missing the invariant is not an instance.
• Recurrence does not earn a gate. A blocking check needs a demonstrated cost of violation: an incident, defect or measured harm traced to the pattern's absence. Recommend the least committed useful shape: no action, a reference or checklist line, a template, a helper, and only then a gate.
• Thin evidence stays a hypothesis. Fewer than three independent exemplars, or no passing holdout, leaves a pattern a hypothesis; say what evidence would confirm or refute it.
• Keep observation, inference, contradiction and unknown separate. Every material claim cites evidence; source agreement does not erase shared provenance.

Investigation

1. State the question and the decision it informs. Reuse the accepted scope and identify what evidence would answer it; do not expand the objective mid-search.
2. Inspect the smallest relevant sources and verify search hits against the actual source. External facts that change (versions, vendor behavior, standards) need current primary sources. This skill pre-approves only local tools: use the host's web tools when available and permitted; otherwise mark the external claim unknown and name the source that would settle it.
3. Lead with the answer, then show evidence and remaining gaps. Each part of the question is answered or explicitly unknown with the searched scope disclosed.

Code claims cite the observed commit plus file:line. For uncommitted content, state HEAD and the changed-file status; do not claim the working bytes can be replayed from HEAD. Keep source identity and freshness visible. Search output, CASS, MS and prior reports are leads, not authority or required phases. Use the current agent by default; additional readers and runtimes require caller selection or existing authorization.

For several supplied reports, retain each source's identifier, author/runtime when known and revision/date. Compare claims as agreement, contradiction or unknown while preserving their original evidence. Verify decisive claims at their source and return one synthesis; do not launch recursive synthesis passes.

Repository tracing

For a repository model or audit, start from its declared entry points in docs, build manifests or command help and verify them against executable paths. Follow a relevant flow through entry, domain logic, integration and tests; prefer a completed trace to a shallow directory inventory. Report an interrupted trace at its exact file/line and explain what is missing. Choose a useful lens such as persistence, authorization, CLI, build or test without requiring a sweep of every lens.

An inline investigation may use dirty working-tree evidence with explicit limits. A selected durable codebase-recon.v1 pack is commit-bound and follows the recon pack contract, checked by skills/research/scripts/codebase-recon/validate-output.sh.

Pattern evidence

For a recurring implementation shape, test whether the similarity represents a reusable rule under the evidence rules above. Record replayable searches, examined hits and exclusions, then report:

exemplars: <file:line> per independent lineage; copies listed under their source
invariant: <what every exemplar shares and the behavior needs>
variation: <legitimate differences>; incidental: <syntax, names>
cost:      <demonstrated cost of violation, or "none found">
shape:     <no action | reference line | template | helper | gate> and why
outcome:   hypothesis | promote (three independent exemplars, passing holdout and back-application)

A selected durable pattern-mining.v1 record follows the pattern pack contract, checked by skills/research/scripts/pattern-mining/validate-output.sh. Research returns evidence; adoption remains an explicit caller decision.

Output and boundaries

Return a cited answer directly unless a durable output was requested or the selected evidence contract requires one. Ordinary durable reports follow findings.json: question, scope, answer, evidence, contradictions, unknowns, checked and unchecked areas. Multi-report synthesis also retains source_ledger and comparison. Selected recon and pattern modes retain their own validated formats instead of forcing them into this schema.

Use only authorized sources and destinations. For restricted or mined episode material, follow Memory's access and storage boundary. Research selects no work, owns no merged context store, mutates no lifecycle state and issues no semantic verdict. The native caller owns implementation, judgment and completion of the authorized outcome.