Use this skill when you need to research a topic online, gather information from multiple sources, or evaluate source credibility. Trigger phrases: ''research'', ''find information about'', ''look up'', ''investigate''. Not for academic systematic reviews (use literature-reviewer) or fact-checking specific claims (use fact-checker).
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add NickCrew/claude-cortex --skill web-researcher --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Web Researcher?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nickcrew-web-researcher-claude-cortex)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: web-researcher
description: 'Use this skill when you need to research a topic online, gather information from multiple sources, or evaluate source credibility. Trigger phrases: ''research'', ''find information about'', ''look up'', ''investigate''. Not for academic systematic reviews (use literature-reviewer) or fact-checking specific claims (use fact-checker).'
version: 1.0.0
author: community
tags:
- research
- web
- search
- information-gathering
license: MIT
keywords:
- research online
- gather information
- web research
- web
- researcher
- web researcher
---
# Web Researcher
## Overview
The Web Researcher skill provides a structured methodology for conducting effective online research. It covers advanced search strategies, source credibility evaluation using the CRAAP test, synthesis of findings across multiple sources, and organized note-taking. Whether exploring a new market, investigating a technical topic, or gathering competitive intelligence, this skill ensures thorough and reliable results.
## When to Use
- Researching a market landscape or competitive environment
- Finding technical documentation or tutorials on a specific topic
- Gathering background information before writing or presenting
- Investigating current events or recent developments
- Compiling information from multiple web sources into a coherent summary
## When NOT to Use
- When you need a systematic academic literature review (use literature-reviewer)
- When verifying a specific factual claim (use fact-checker)
- When searching only within a single database or proprietary system
- When real-time or live data is required (stock prices, live scores)
## Quick Reference
| Task | Approach |
|------|----------|
| Broad topic overview | Start with Wikipedia, then follow cited sources |
| Find recent news | Use `site:reuters.com` or `after:2024-01-01` filter |
| Academic sources | Google Scholar, PubMed, SSRN |
| Government data | `site:.gov` or `site:.edu` operators |
| Exclude noise | Use `-` operator: `python tutorial -w3schools` |
| Exact phrase | Wrap in quotes: `"machine learning fairness"` |
| Evaluate credibility | Apply CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) |
## Instructions
1. **Define your research question clearly**
- Write a 1-2 sentence research question before searching
- Identify key concepts and synonyms for each concept
- Example: "What are the current market leaders in B2B SaaS CRM software and their pricing models?"
2. **Construct effective search queries using Boolean operators**
- AND: narrows results — `CRM software AND pricing AND B2B`
- OR: broadens results — `CRM OR "customer relationship management"`
- NOT/minus: excludes terms — `CRM pricing -Salesforce`
- Quotes for exact phrases: `"market share" "CRM software"`
- Wildcard (*): `"best * for small business"`
3. **Use site-specific and advanced search filters**
- `site:domain.com` — search within a specific site
- `filetype:pdf` — find PDFs (reports, whitepapers)
- `intitle:keyword` — keyword must appear in page title
- `after:YYYY-MM-DD` / `before:YYYY-MM-DD` — date range filtering
- Example: `CRM market share filetype:pdf after:2023-01-01`
4. **Evaluate sources using the CRAAP test**
- **Currency**: When was it published? Is it recent enough for your topic?
- **Relevance**: Does it directly address your research question?
- **Authority**: Who wrote it? What are their credentials? Is the domain reputable (.gov, .edu, peer-reviewed)?
- **Accuracy**: Is it supported by evidence? Are claims cited? Can you verify facts elsewhere?
- **Purpose**: Why was it written? Is there bias (commercial, political, ideological)?
5. **Diversify your sources**
- Aim for at least 5–7 independent sources
- Include: primary sources (original research, official data), secondary sources (analysis, journalism), and expert commentary
- Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources
6. **Take structured notes**
Use this template for each source:
```
Source: [Title, Author, URL, Date]
Credibility: [CRAAP score: High/Medium/Low]
Key Finding 1: [quote or paraphrase]
Key Finding 2: [quote or paraphrase]
Relevance to question: [1-2 sentences]
```
7. **Synthesize findings**
- Group notes by theme, not by source
- Identify areas of consensus across sources
- Note contradictions and explain possible reasons
- Highlight gaps where information is missing or unclear
## Examples
### Example 1: Research a Market Landscape
**Input:** "Research the current landscape of AI-powered writing tools — key players, pricing, and differentiators."
**Output:**
```
Research Question: Who are the leading AI writing tools, what do they cost, and how do they differentiate?
Search queries used:
- "AI writing tools" market share 2024
- site:g2.com "AI writing" comparison
- "Jasper" OR "Copy.ai" OR "Writesonic" pricing filetype:pdf
Key Findings (synthesized by theme):
MARKET LEADERS:
- Jasper AI: Enterprise focus, starts at $49/mo, strong brand voice features (Source: Jasper.ai, G2 Reviews 2024)
- Copy.ai: Freemium model, $36/mo pro, workflow automation focus (Source: Copy.ai website)
- Writesonic: $16/mo starter, SEO integration via SurferSEO (Source: Writesonic.com)
DIFFERENTIATORS:
- Jasper: Brand voice training, team collaboration
- Copy.ai: Go-to-market workflows, CRM integrations
- Writesonic: Cost efficiency, built-in SEO tools
PRICING TREND: Most tools moving to seat-based + usage-credit hybrid model (multiple sources, 2024)
GAPS: Limited independent data on enterprise contract pricing; most pricing pages hide volume discounts.
Sources rated: 6/7 High credibility (1 Medium — blog post with no cited data)
```
### Example 2: Find Information on a Technical Topic
**Input:** "Find information on WebAssembly performance compared to JavaScript for compute-intensive tasks."
**Output:**
```
Research Question: How does WebAssembly performance compare to JavaScript for compute-intensive workloads?
Search queries used:
- "WebAssembly" vs JavaScript performance benchmark
- site:v8.dev WebAssembly
- "WASM" performance "compute intensive" filetype:pdf after:2022-01-01
Key Findings:
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS:
- WASM is typically 10–40% faster than JS for CPU-bound tasks (Mozilla Hacks, 2023)
- For memory-intensive tasks, WASM's linear memory model offers predictability (V8 Blog, 2023)
- JS remains faster for DOM manipulation due to JIT optimization (Surma, web.dev, 2022)
USE CASES WHERE WASM WINS:
- Image/video processing, cryptography, physics simulations, codecs
- Example: Figma uses WASM for its rendering engine (Figma Engineering Blog)
USE CASES WHERE JS IS SUFFICIENT:
- Business logic, UI interactions, API calls, form handling
CREDIBILITY NOTES:
- v8.dev and mozilla.org = High authority (engine developers)
- Personal blogs cross-checked against official benchmarks
```
## Best Practices
- Always start with a written research question — don't just start Googling
- Use at least 3 different search engines or databases for comprehensive coverage
- Screenshot or archive pages in case content changes (use web.archive.org)
- Date-stamp your research sessions — web content changes frequently
- For controversial topics, seek sources from multiple ideological or institutional perspectives
- Build a personal library of trusted source domains by topic area
## Common Mistakes
- Using only the first page of Google results (try different queries and go deeper)
- Accepting information without checking the original primary source
- Trusting a source based on professional appearance alone (design ≠ credibility)
- Failing to note the date of information (outdated data can mislead)
- Confusing correlation with causation in statistics found online
- Not recording URLs at time of research (links go dead)
## Tips & Tricks
- Use Google's "Tools" filter to set a custom date range for recent content
- Append `site:reddit.com` to find candid user opinions and practitioner discussions
- `cache:url` in Google shows the cached version of a page if it's down
- Use `related:domain.com` to find websites similar to a trusted source
- For news, use AllSides.com to see coverage across left/center/right perspectives
- Browser extensions like Web of Science Unpaywall unlock paywalled academic PDFs
## Related Skills
- [literature-reviewer](../../research/literature-reviewer/SKILL.md)
- [fact-checker](../../research/fact-checker/SKILL.md)
- [summarizer](../../research/summarizer/SKILL.md)
- [citation-formatter](../../research/citation-formatter/SKILL.md)
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!