home / skills / nickcrew / claude-cortex / research-methodology
This skill helps you conduct rigorous competitive analysis and market scans by designing queries, vetting sources, and synthesizing findings.
npx playbooks add skill nickcrew/claude-cortex --skill research-methodologyReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: research-methodology
description: Structured research using sophisticated query design, source vetting, and synthesis techniques. Use when conducting competitive analysis, market scans, historical investigations, or trend research.
tags: [research, analysis, fact-checking, synthesis]
triggers:
- research topic
- competitive analysis
- market scan
- trend analysis
- fact verification
- investigate
---
# Research Methodology
Structured approach to finding, vetting, and synthesizing information from diverse
sources. Turns research questions into trustworthy, actionable findings through
systematic query design, source evaluation, and cross-referencing.
## When to Use This Skill
- Conducting competitive analysis or market scans
- Investigating historical events, trends, or technical evolution
- Fact-checking claims across multiple sources
- Synthesizing research into structured deliverables (reports, tables, timelines)
- Any research task that requires more than a single search query
## Quick Reference
| Resource | Purpose | Load when |
|----------|---------|-----------|
| `references/search-strategies.md` | Query design, source vetting, fact verification, synthesis techniques | Starting any research task |
---
## Workflow
```
Phase 1: Scope → Define research objective, key questions, constraints
Phase 2: Explore → Design queries, search broadly, capture sources
Phase 3: Verify → Vet sources, cross-reference claims, assess credibility
Phase 4: Synthesize → Organize findings into structured deliverables
```
---
## Phase 1: Scope the Research
Before searching, clarify the research objective:
1. **State the question** -- what exactly are we trying to learn?
2. **Define success criteria** -- what does a complete answer look like?
3. **Set constraints** -- time period, geography, domains, source types
4. **List hypotheses** -- what do we expect to find? (helps detect bias)
5. **Identify key terms** -- domain vocabulary, synonyms, related concepts
### Scoping Template
```markdown
**Research Question**: [precise question]
**Success Criteria**: [what constitutes a complete answer]
**Constraints**: [time period, scope, source types]
**Key Terms**: [domain vocabulary and synonyms]
**Initial Hypotheses**: [what we expect, to check against later]
```
---
## Phase 2: Explore
Design multiple query variations and search broadly before narrowing:
1. **Create 3-5 query variations** per research question
2. **Search broadly first** -- cast a wide net with general terms
3. **Refine iteratively** -- narrow based on initial results
4. **Track what you searched** -- record every query for reproducibility
### Query Design Principles
- Use exact-match phrases in quotes for precision
- Exclude noise with negative keywords
- Target specific timeframes for recency or historical depth
- Vary terminology across queries to avoid vocabulary bias
- Use domain-specific operators when available (site:, filetype:, etc.)
### Source Capture
For each promising source, record:
- URL and access date
- Key claims with direct quotes
- Author/publisher and their domain authority
- Any noted biases or limitations
---
## Phase 3: Verify
Vet sources and cross-reference claims before trusting them:
1. **Assess source authority** -- who wrote it, what are their credentials?
2. **Check recency** -- is the information current enough for the question?
3. **Detect bias** -- does the source have a commercial, political, or ideological interest?
4. **Triangulate** -- require 2+ independent sources for any key claim
5. **Seek primary sources** -- follow citation chains to the original data
### Confidence Rating
| Level | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| **Confirmed** | 3+ independent, authoritative sources agree |
| **Likely** | 2 sources agree, no contradictions found |
| **Uncertain** | Single source or sources disagree |
| **Contested** | Credible sources directly contradict each other |
---
## Phase 4: Synthesize
Organize findings into a structured deliverable:
### Standard Research Report Structure
```markdown
## Research Summary
[1-2 paragraph overview of findings]
## Key Findings
- [Finding 1] — [confidence level]
- [Finding 2] — [confidence level]
## Detailed Analysis
[Organized by theme or question]
## Source Credibility Assessment
| Source | Authority | Recency | Bias Risk | Rating |
|--------|-----------|---------|-----------|--------|
## Gaps and Limitations
[What we couldn't determine and why]
## Recommendations
[Next steps or actions based on findings]
```
---
## Anti-Patterns
- Do not rely on a single source for any key claim
- Do not present uncertain findings as confirmed facts
- Do not skip source vetting for convenience
- Do not omit contradictory evidence -- always surface disagreements
- Do not let initial hypotheses bias which findings you report
This skill provides a structured methodology for conducting rigorous research using deliberate query design, source vetting, and synthesis. It turns research questions into reproducible, trustworthy findings and clear deliverables like reports, timelines, and comparative tables. Use it to reduce bias, improve confidence in claims, and produce actionable recommendations.
The workflow breaks research into four phases: Scope, Explore, Verify, and Synthesize. It starts by defining precise questions, success criteria, constraints, and hypotheses; then generates multiple query variations, captures sources with metadata, evaluates credibility and recency, and triangulates claims. Final outputs are organized reports or data artifacts with confidence ratings and documented gaps.
How many sources are enough to confirm a claim?
Prefer 3+ independent, authoritative sources for confirmation; 2 sources may indicate likelihood, and a single source is uncertain.
What if sources disagree?
Surface the disagreement, assess the credibility and recency of each source, assign a confidence level, and identify what primary evidence could resolve the conflict.