Web Research Pipeline

Give this skill a question — "what's the current state of X," "compare claims about Y," "is Z actually true" — and it runs the research discipline most ad-hoc searching skips: multiple angles, full-content reads, cross-checked claims, and a synthesis that separates the verified from the reported from the unknown.

When to use this skill

• A question needs evidence from several sources, not one search-and-summarize.
• Claims must be load-bearing: you'll act on the answer, cite it, or publish from it.
• The topic is fresh or contested — where single-source answers and training-data memory mislead.

When NOT to use this skill

• One authoritative page answers it (read that page; this pipeline is overhead).
• The job is monitoring (recurring watches belong in scheduled automation, not a research pass).
• Deep multi-hour investigation with adversarial verification — that's a full research harness; this skill is the sub-hour structured pass.

Instructions

1. Decompose before searching. Break the question into 2–5 search angles (the entity, the counter-claim, the recent development, the primary source likely to exist). State them — the angles are the plan.
2. Search broad, then sharp. Run the angles through available search tools (web search, or API-backed tools like Tavily/Exa MCP when connected). Collect candidate sources; prefer primary (vendor docs, papers, official announcements, repos) over coverage, and note publication dates — recency matters and undated claims are suspect.
3. Fetch full content for the shortlist. Read the top 3–6 sources in full (fetch tools; Jina-Reader-style extraction for hostile pages) — snippets lie by omission. Skip paywalled/unreachable sources rather than guessing their contents.
4. Extract claims with attribution. Pull the specific claims that answer the question, each tagged with its source and date. Distinguish facts (verifiable statements) from vendor claims (performance numbers, adoption stats) from opinion.
5. Cross-check what's load-bearing. Every claim the conclusion depends on gets a second, independent source — or gets flagged as single-source. Where sources disagree, record both positions and the likely reason (date, incentive, definition drift).
6. Synthesize honestly. Write the answer in three layers: what's well-supported (with citations), what's reported-but-unverified, and what couldn't be determined. Resist rounding "one blog said" up to "it is known."

Output

A research brief: the question, the answer-first summary, findings grouped by confidence (verified / reported / unknown) with inline citations and dates, points of disagreement with both positions, and the search trail (angles run, sources read) so the work is auditable and extendable.