175 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
175 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: report-findings
|
|
description: This skill should be used when synthesizing multi-source research, presenting findings with attribution, or when "report", "findings", or "synthesis" are mentioned.
|
|
metadata:
|
|
version: "1.1.0"
|
|
related-skills:
|
|
- research
|
|
- codebase-recon
|
|
- patterns
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Report Findings
|
|
|
|
Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.
|
|
|
|
<when_to_use>
|
|
|
|
- Synthesizing research from multiple sources
|
|
- Presenting findings with proper attribution
|
|
- Comparing options with structured analysis
|
|
- Assessing source credibility
|
|
- Documenting research conclusions
|
|
|
|
NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions
|
|
|
|
</when_to_use>
|
|
|
|
<source_authority>
|
|
|
|
| Tier | Confidence | Types | Use For |
|
|
|------|------------|-------|---------|
|
|
| **1: Primary** | 90-100% | Official docs, original research, direct observation | Factual claims, guarantees |
|
|
| **2: Secondary** | 70-90% | Expert analysis, established publications, official guides | Best practices, patterns |
|
|
| **3: Community** | 50-70% | Q&A sites, blogs, wikis, anecdotal evidence | Workarounds, pitfalls |
|
|
| **4: Unverified** | 0-50% | Unattributed, outdated, content farms, unchecked AI | Initial leads only |
|
|
|
|
See [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) for detailed assessment criteria.
|
|
|
|
</source_authority>
|
|
|
|
<cross_referencing>
|
|
|
|
## Two-Source Minimum
|
|
|
|
Never rely on single source for critical claims:
|
|
1. Find claim in initial source
|
|
2. Seek confirmation in independent source
|
|
3. If sources conflict → investigate further
|
|
4. If sources agree → moderate confidence
|
|
5. If 3+ sources agree → high confidence
|
|
|
|
## Conflict Resolution
|
|
|
|
When sources disagree:
|
|
1. **Check dates** — newer information often supersedes
|
|
2. **Compare authority** — higher tier beats lower tier
|
|
3. **Verify context** — might both be right in different scenarios
|
|
4. **Test empirically** — verify through direct observation if possible
|
|
5. **Document uncertainty** — flag if unresolved
|
|
|
|
## Triangulation
|
|
|
|
For complex questions, seek alignment across:
|
|
- **Official sources** — what should happen
|
|
- **Direct evidence** — what actually happens
|
|
- **Community reports** — what people experience
|
|
|
|
All three align → high confidence. Mismatches → investigate the gap.
|
|
|
|
</cross_referencing>
|
|
|
|
<comparison_analysis>
|
|
|
|
Three comparison methods:
|
|
|
|
| Method | When to Use |
|
|
|--------|-------------|
|
|
| **Feature Matrix** | Side-by-side capability comparison |
|
|
| **Trade-off Analysis** | Strengths/weaknesses/use cases per option |
|
|
| **Weighted Matrix** | Quantitative scoring with importance weights |
|
|
|
|
See [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) for templates and examples.
|
|
|
|
</comparison_analysis>
|
|
|
|
<synthesis_techniques>
|
|
|
|
## Extract Themes
|
|
|
|
Across sources, identify:
|
|
- **Consensus** — what everyone agrees on
|
|
- **Disagreements** — where opinions differ
|
|
- **Edge cases** — nuanced situations
|
|
|
|
## Present Findings
|
|
|
|
1. **Main answer** — clear, actionable
|
|
2. **Supporting evidence** — cite 2-3 strongest sources
|
|
3. **Caveats** — limitations, context-specific notes
|
|
4. **Alternatives** — other valid approaches
|
|
|
|
</synthesis_techniques>
|
|
|
|
<confidence_calibration>
|
|
|
|
| Level | Indicator | Criteria |
|
|
|-------|-----------|----------|
|
|
| **High** | 90-100% | 3+ tier-1 sources agree, empirically verified |
|
|
| **Moderate** | 60-89% | 2 tier-2 sources agree, some empirical support |
|
|
| **Low** | Below 60% | Single source or tier-3 only, unverified |
|
|
|
|
Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.
|
|
|
|
</confidence_calibration>
|
|
|
|
<output_format>
|
|
|
|
Standard report structure:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Summary
|
|
{ 1-2 sentence answer }
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings
|
|
1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
|
|
|
|
## Comparison (if applicable)
|
|
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }
|
|
|
|
## Confidence Assessment
|
|
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%
|
|
|
|
## Sources
|
|
- [Source](url) — tier {N}
|
|
|
|
## Caveats
|
|
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
See [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) for full template with guidelines.
|
|
|
|
</output_format>
|
|
|
|
<rules>
|
|
|
|
ALWAYS:
|
|
- Assess source authority before citing
|
|
- Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
|
|
- Include confidence levels with findings
|
|
- Cite sources with proper attribution
|
|
- Flag uncertainties
|
|
|
|
NEVER:
|
|
- Cite single source for critical claims
|
|
- Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
|
|
- Skip confidence calibration
|
|
- Hide conflicting sources
|
|
- Omit caveats when uncertainty exists
|
|
|
|
</rules>
|
|
|
|
<references>
|
|
|
|
- [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) — detailed authority assessment
|
|
- [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) — comparison templates
|
|
- [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) — full report structure
|
|
|
|
**Research vs Report-Findings**:
|
|
- `research` skill covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
|
|
- This skill (`report-findings`) covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation
|
|
|
|
Load this skill during research synthesis stage, or standalone for any task requiring multi-source synthesis with proper attribution.
|
|
|
|
</references>
|