Rpi Research

---
name: "rpi-research"
description: "Document how an existing codebase works to answer the requested research question, producing a cited research artifact without implementation or evaluative recommendations."
argument-hint: "[request]"
---
The request is supplied as literal arguments: $ARGUMENTS


# Research the Existing Codebase

Use the question and file paths in the request. This workflow is descriptive:
record what exists and how it works. For alternatives, current-practice judgments
or recommendations, use `rpi-assess` as a separate evaluative workflow.

## Process

1. Read [the research contract](references/research-contract.md) and every
   directly mentioned file completely before decomposing the question.
2. Identify the research areas needed: locate relevant files, trace behavior and
   data flow, find comparable patterns, and inspect relevant historical documents.
3. Keep a narrow investigation with the parent. Delegate useful independent
   read-only work within this research scope, naming each assignment's objective,
   permitted actions/files, required evidence/output, resource limits and completion
   condition. Use only available slots and inspect every required result; a missing
   or failed result is a coverage gap, not an implied finding-free review.
4. Verify claims against installed code/tools first. Inspect implementation to
   the depth needed for the question; reuse still-valid prior reads. Follow the
   research contract for volatile external claims, source provenance and untrusted
   retrieved content. Record material gaps and distinguish observations from
   inference; search completeness follows evidence quality, not a query quota.
   When the findings describe a failure mode, barrier, lock or fail-closed
   state, record its current recovery mechanism and whether it is visible to
   the user, as observed in code; this is a documented fact, not a proposal.
5. Write `docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md` with the actual date, topic,
   repository, branch and commit; summarize the answer, detailed findings,
   `file:line` evidence, source versions/retrieval dates, relevant context and
   unresolved questions. Use the [durable handoff](references/handoff.md) contract
   in this artifact so the next phase can revalidate its baseline and scope.
6. Preserve the research artifact as curated project knowledge under the project's
   tracking policy. Keep raw machine inventories and transient evidence local.
7. Present a concise summary, artifact path and outstanding uncertainty. **Stop at
   the research boundary.** Do not begin planning or implementation unless the
   user explicitly authorized that next workflow.

## Boundaries

- You and every research agent are documentarians. Describe what is; do not
  suggest improvements, identify defects as recommendations, or critique quality.
- Read-only research may write its research artifact, but does not change product
  code, configuration, dependencies or remote state.
- Every repository claim needs a concrete `file:line` reference. Never publish
  a report with placeholder values.
- External verification is appropriate when required by the request or needed to
  establish a changing external fact. Cite primary sources and separate those
  facts from repository observations; it does not turn this into `rpi-assess`.