---

name: content-research-writer description: > Use when the user needs research methodology, long-form content creation, academic-style citations, fact-checking, or evidence-based writing with proper source attribution. Trigger conditions: whitepaper drafting, research article writing, source evaluation, citation management, fact-checking protocol, case study creation, evidence-based argumentation.

Content Research Writer

Overview

Produce well-researched, authoritative long-form content with proper source attribution, structured argumentation, and evidence-based claims. This skill covers research methodology, source evaluation, citation management, outline construction, drafting workflows, fact-checking protocols, and publishing-ready formatting for articles, whitepapers, reports, and educational content.

Apply this skill whenever content must be backed by evidence, cited properly, and structured for credibility with expert audiences.

Multi-Phase Process

Phase 1: Research Planning

1. Define the topic scope and target audience
2. Identify key questions the content must answer
3. Determine content type (article, whitepaper, case study, guide)
4. Set word count target and depth level
5. Establish credibility requirements (peer-reviewed, industry reports, primary data)
6. Create a research timeline with milestones

STOP — Do NOT begin source discovery until the research plan is documented and scope is agreed upon.

Phase 2: Source Discovery and Evaluation

1. Search academic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, arXiv)
2. Identify industry reports and authoritative publications
3. Find primary sources (official documentation, datasets, specifications)
4. Evaluate source credibility using the CRAAP test (see table below)
5. Organize sources in a reference manager or structured format
6. Extract key findings, statistics, and quotable passages

STOP — Do NOT begin outlining until you have sufficient Tier 1-2 sources for every core claim.

Phase 3: Outline and Structure

1. Create a thesis statement or central argument
2. Build hierarchical outline with main sections and subsections
3. Map evidence to each section (which sources support which claims)
4. Identify gaps requiring additional research
5. Define transitions between sections for narrative flow
6. Plan visual elements (tables, charts, diagrams, callouts)

STOP — Do NOT begin drafting until the outline is reviewed and evidence gaps are filled.

Phase 4: Drafting

1. Write section by section following the outline
2. Integrate citations as you write (never retrofit)
3. Balance original analysis with supporting evidence
4. Use topic sentences and clear paragraph structure
5. Include concrete examples, data points, and case studies
6. Write introduction last (after body is complete)

STOP — Do NOT move to review until all sections are drafted and all citations are in place.

Phase 5: Review and Fact-Check

1. Verify every factual claim against its source
2. Check all statistics for accuracy and context
3. Ensure citations are complete and correctly formatted
4. Review for logical consistency and argument strength
5. Proofread for clarity, grammar, and style
6. Have subject matter expert review if possible

Content Type Decision Table

Content Type	Word Count	Research Depth	Audience	Citation Style
Blog article	1,500-3,000	Tier 2-3 sources	General	Inline links
Long-form article	3,000-5,000	Tier 1-3 sources	Informed readers	Parenthetical (APA)
Whitepaper	3,000-8,000	Tier 1-2 mandatory	Decision-makers	Footnotes or numbered
Case study	1,000-2,500	Primary + Tier 2	Buyers	Inline attribution
Technical report	5,000-15,000	Tier 1 mandatory	Experts	IEEE or APA
Educational guide	2,000-6,000	Tier 1-3 mixed	Learners	Parenthetical

Source Evaluation Framework (CRAAP Test)

Criterion	Questions to Ask	Red Flags
Currency	When was it published? Updated?	> 5 years old for fast-moving topics
Relevance	Does it directly address your topic?	Tangential connection, different context
Authority	Who is the author? What are their credentials?	No author, no institutional affiliation
Accuracy	Is it supported by evidence? Peer-reviewed?	No citations, unverifiable claims
Purpose	Why does this exist? Inform, sell, persuade?	Strong commercial bias, advocacy without disclosure

Source Tier System

Tier	Source Type	Credibility	Use For
Tier 1	Peer-reviewed journals, official standards	Highest	Core claims, statistics
Tier 2	Industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey), textbooks	High	Market data, frameworks
Tier 3	Reputable news outlets, official documentation	Good	Context, current events
Tier 4	Expert blogs, conference talks, interviews	Moderate	Perspectives, opinions
Tier 5	Social media, forums, Wikipedia	Low	Discovery only, never cite directly

Citation Formats

Inline Citation Styles

# Parenthetical (APA-style)
Research shows that 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures
(Smith & Johnson, 2025).

# Narrative
According to Smith and Johnson (2025), 73% of enterprises have adopted
cloud-native architectures.

# Footnote-style (Chicago)
Research shows significant cloud adoption.[^1]

[^1]: Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2025). Cloud adoption trends.
*Journal of Cloud Computing*, 12(3), 45-62.

# Numbered (IEEE-style)
Research shows significant cloud adoption [1].

## References
[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Cloud adoption trends," *J. Cloud Computing*,
    vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-62, 2025.

Reference Format Templates

# Journal Article
Author, A. B., & Author, C. D. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*,
Volume(Issue), Pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx

# Book
Author, A. B. (Year). *Title of book* (Edition). Publisher.

# Website
Author or Organization. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name.
https://www.example.com/page

# Report
Organization. (Year). *Title of report* (Report No. XXX).
https://www.example.com/report.pdf

Content Structure Templates

Long-Form Article (2000-5000 words)

1. Hook / Opening Anecdote (100-200 words)
2. Context and Problem Statement (200-300 words)
3. Thesis / Key Insight (50-100 words)
4. Section 1: Background (400-600 words)
   - Historical context
   - Current state
   - Key definitions
5. Section 2: Core Analysis (600-1000 words)
   - Main argument with evidence
   - Data and statistics
   - Expert perspectives
6. Section 3: Implications (400-600 words)
   - Practical applications
   - Case studies
   - Future outlook
7. Section 4: Counterarguments (200-400 words)
   - Acknowledge limitations
   - Address objections
8. Conclusion (200-300 words)
   - Synthesize key findings
   - Call to action or forward-looking statement
9. References

Whitepaper (3000-8000 words)

1. Executive Summary (300-500 words)
2. Introduction and Problem Statement (500-800 words)
3. Methodology (300-500 words)
4. Findings / Analysis (1500-3000 words)
   - Section with data visualization
   - Comparative analysis
   - Case studies
5. Recommendations (500-1000 words)
6. Conclusion (300-500 words)
7. Appendices
8. References

Case Study (1000-2500 words)

1. Executive Summary (100-200 words)
2. Challenge / Problem (200-400 words)
3. Approach / Solution (300-600 words)
4. Implementation (300-500 words)
5. Results and Metrics (200-400 words)
6. Lessons Learned (200-300 words)
7. About [Company/Subject]

Writing Quality Checklist

Paragraph Level

• Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
• Paragraphs are 3-6 sentences (avoid walls of text)
• Transitions connect paragraphs logically
• Evidence follows claims immediately

Sentence Level

• Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
• Active voice preferred over passive
• Avoid jargon without definition
• Concrete language over abstract

Document Level

• Introduction establishes the "so what" clearly
• Each section advances the central argument
• No unsupported claims
• Conclusion adds value (doesn't just repeat)
• Consistent tone and reading level throughout

Fact-Checking Protocol

Verification Steps

1. Primary source check: Trace every claim back to its original source
2. Cross-reference: Verify key facts with at least 2 independent sources
3. Statistical validation: Check that numbers are current and in context
4. Quote accuracy: Verify exact wording of all direct quotes
5. Date verification: Confirm all dates and timelines
6. Name and title check: Verify correct spelling and current titles

Common Fact-Checking Pitfalls

Pitfall	Example	Prevention
Outdated statistics	"50% of..." from a 2018 study	Always note publication year, seek recent data
Misattributed quotes	Einstein didn't say most "Einstein quotes"	Trace to primary source document
Survivorship bias	"All successful companies do X"	Look for counterexamples
Correlation as causation	"Countries that eat chocolate win more Nobels"	Distinguish correlation from causation
Out-of-context numbers	"Revenue grew 500%" (from $1 to $5)	Always provide absolute numbers and context

Research Tools

Tool	Purpose	Best For
Google Scholar	Academic paper search	Peer-reviewed research
Semantic Scholar	AI-powered paper discovery	Finding related work
arXiv	Preprints	Cutting-edge CS/ML/Physics
PubMed	Medical/bio research	Health and life sciences
Statista	Statistics and market data	Industry data points
Wayback Machine	Historical web pages	Verifying past claims
Zotero / Mendeley	Reference management	Organizing sources
Perplexity	AI-assisted research	Initial discovery

Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	What To Do Instead
Claims without citations	Undermines credibility entirely	Cite every factual claim inline
Single-source assertions	One source can be wrong or biased	Cross-reference with 2+ independent sources
Citing secondary when primary exists	Telephone game distorts findings	Trace to and cite the original study
Writing introduction first	Leads to misalignment with body	Write body first, introduction last
Padding to reach word count	Readers detect filler immediately	Add depth or cut the target
Weasel words without specifics	"Some experts say" means nothing	Name the expert, cite the source
Retrofitting citations after drafting	Gaps in evidence go unnoticed	Integrate citations during writing
Ignoring counterarguments	One-sided work lacks credibility	Address objections explicitly
Paraphrasing too closely	Borderline plagiarism even with citation	Summarize in your own analytical voice
No conflict-of-interest disclosure	Erodes trust when discovered	Disclose sponsorship or affiliations upfront

Anti-Rationalization Guards

• Do NOT skip the CRAAP test because "the source looks reputable" -- evaluate it formally.
• Do NOT use Tier 4-5 sources for core claims, regardless of convenience.
• Do NOT begin drafting without a completed outline with evidence mapped to sections.
• Do NOT publish without running the fact-checking protocol on every statistic and quote.
• Do NOT retrofit citations after writing -- integrate them as you draft.

Integration Points

Skill	How It Connects
seo-optimizer	Research content needs SEO-optimized titles, meta descriptions, and structured data
content-creator	Research findings feed into marketing copy and social media content
email-composer	Research summaries inform stakeholder update emails and executive briefings
tech-docs-generator	Technical research follows similar source evaluation and citation practices
llm-as-judge	Evaluate research content quality against rubric dimensions
clean-code	Writing quality checklist parallels clean code principles for prose

Skill Type

FLEXIBLE — Adapt research depth, citation formality, and structure to the content type and audience. Academic whitepapers demand Tier 1 sources and formal citations; blog posts may use a lighter approach. The fact-checking protocol and source evaluation framework are always recommended.