Omh Research Brief

---
name: "omh-research-brief"
description: "[omh] Business question on market, competitors, pricing: business research brief - turns a market, competitor, pricing, or customer question into a structured evidence-vs-inference brief; for raw link gathering use ulw-research, and for ongoing multi-role research use research-department. Use when the user says: research-brief, business-research, business research, research brief, decision brief, pricing decision brief, decision-ready brief, source-backed business research."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, research]
    category: research
    phase: business-brief
    role: researcher
    quality_tier: source-gated
---

# Research Brief

This is an OMH `research-brief` workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

## Why This Exists

`research-brief` exists to keep `research` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.

## Do Not Use When

- The user needs to decide whether a customer problem deserves product investment with evidence typing and customer re-entry; use `product-discovery-validation`.
- The request is only fresh links, citations, or current facts without a business question or decision audience; use `research`.
- Sources have not yet been selected and the user wants source types, candidates, or acquisition state; use `source-finder`.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: research-brief: compare three onboarding analytics vendors using customer notes and confidence gaps.
- Expected behavior: Prepare a source-backed brief with evidence, inference, confidence, and retrieval gaps separated.
- Why: The user needs business research synthesis, not recurring operations or coding.

Bad example:

- Prompt: research-brief: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `research-brief`.
- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.

## Completion Checklist

- The research question, source boundaries, recency assumptions, and confidence level are named.
- Observed sources, inference, synthesis, and unresolved retrieval gaps are separated.
- Follow-up planning or handoff uses the research summary without calling it execution evidence.

## Recovery Notes

- If sources cannot be accessed, state the retrieval gap and use only observed local context.
- If evidence is thin or one-sided, lower confidence and ask for a narrower source boundary.



## Use When

Use when Hermes should scope a business question, gather or summarize source-backed evidence, and preserve evidence/inference boundaries before strategy or handoff.

    Strong routing signals: `research-brief`, `business-research`, `business research`, `research brief`, `decision brief`, `pricing decision brief`, `decision-ready brief`, `source-backed business research`, `customer feedback trends`, `feedback trends`, `market evidence`, `data search`, `source scan`, `자료 조사`, `데이터 서치`, `근거 조사`, `피드백 추세`, `고객 피드백 추세`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `research`
Phase: `business-brief`
Quality tier: `source-gated`
Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

- State the research question, source boundaries, and recency assumptions before synthesis.
- Record each material claim as a compact evidence row: claim, source, source class (upstream official, practitioner heuristic, or unattributed), source date, confidence, and unresolved conflict.
- Keep claims that lack corroboration in an explicit unresolved list instead of asserting or silently dropping them.
- Separate observed sources, source quality, source diversity, inferred trends, and unresolved uncertainty.
- Use the brief to feed strategy or meeting work without calling it execution evidence.

Required inputs:

- business question
- source boundary
- recency or market scope

Expected outputs:

- evidence table
- inference summary
- confidence and uncertainty

Artifact expectations:

- research brief or source ledger when the wrapper captures observed sources

Safety rules:

- Do not claim sources were fetched unless Hermes or the wrapper observed them.
- Separate evidence, inference, confidence, source diversity, and missing-source gaps.
- Route later implementation separately through an accepted plan and coding handoff.

## Runtime Evidence

Use the current host's own tools and subagent/task mechanism when available;
otherwise run the same lanes sequentially or name the unavailable capability.
A prepared plan, handoff, checklist, or skill installation is not execution,
review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence. Record actual tool results, or
`not_observed` / `not_available`, in the record; never invent dispatch or host
accounting.
Treat supplied context as advisory, not proof of hidden memory reads or writes.
State scope, constraints, verification, and the stop condition before work.
Reply in the user's own words and the host's own voice: the host's persona owns
reply language, tone, speech level, and sentence endings, progress updates
included (where it sets no language, use the one the user wrote in), and OMH
shapes structure and content only; OMH's record terms
(surface, lane, wrapper, handoff, evidence boundary, not_observed) stay in
records and tool calls, never in the sentence the user reads unless they ask
about one; and when a stop condition or a decision the user owns ends the turn,
offer the next action as a question rather than declaring what will not be done.
Supporting paths are relative to this skill directory; sibling skill paths are
relative to its parent. Resolve them from the host-provided skill base directory
(`{baseDir}` on hosts that provide it), never a hardcoded install location.
A named workflow not installed here is unavailable, not permission to emulate
its host-specific capabilities. Verify through the real surface before done.