> **Created**: 2026-03-19 > **Status**: Completed > **Priority**: P1 > **Tech Spec**: [2-tech-spec.md](../2-tech-spec.md) > **Best Practices Audit**: Phase 4 Gap Report (conversation 2026-03-19) > **Brainstorm threadId**: `019d053d-e515-7ca2-bd8b-f676c23d9d83`
Scanned 9/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sd0xdev/sd0x-harness --skill requests --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Requests?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sd0xdev-requests-7a305913)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
# Multi-Agent Deep Research Skill (`/deep-research`)
> **Created**: 2026-03-19
> **Status**: Completed
> **Priority**: P1
> **Tech Spec**: [2-tech-spec.md](../2-tech-spec.md)
> **Best Practices Audit**: Phase 4 Gap Report (conversation 2026-03-19)
> **Brainstorm threadId**: `019d053d-e515-7ca2-bd8b-f676c23d9d83`
## Background
現有 skills 在通用議題探索上有缺口:`/deep-explore` 只能探索 codebase,`/best-practices` 僅限 audit 場景,`/feasibility-study` 聚焦方案評估。缺少一個能對**任何議題**進行多 agent 並行 deep research 的通用工具——結合 web research + codebase analysis + adversarial validation。
業界趨勢(Anthropic/OpenAI/LangChain): orchestrator-worker pattern, parallel sub-agent exploration, claim registry synthesis, conditional adversarial debate。
## Requirements
| 需求 | 說明 |
|------|------|
| 4-Phase Pipeline | Scope → Parallel Research → Synthesis+GapDetect → Conditional Validation |
| 3 Role Templates | researcher(evidence-first), synthesizer(claim registry + conflict resolution), validator(dispute check + debate escalation) |
| Parallel Web + Code Research | 2-3 researcher agents in background, each with distinct shard(source type or domain) |
| Claim Registry | Unified evidence model(URL + file:line),dedup, conflict resolution by evidence weight |
| Completeness Scoring | 4-signal: source_diversity 30% + cross_verification 30% + gap_coverage 25% + question_closure 15% × confidence_cap |
| Conditional Debate | `--debate auto`: trigger on unresolved P0/P1 conflict, low cross-verification, high blast-radius recommendation |
| Mode System | `--mode exploratory\|compliance\|decision` controls scoring weights and debate threshold |
| Composable | Reuse `/codex-brainstorm` for debate, `deep-explore` claim registry, `best-practices` web research cascade |
## Scope
| Scope | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| In | 4-phase pipeline, 3 role templates, parallel research dispatch, claim registry (URL + file:line), 4-signal completeness scoring, conditional debate trigger, mode system, token budget cap |
| Out | Persistent cross-session learning(v2), custom tool plugins(v2), streaming progress UI(v2) |
## Related Files
| File | Action | Description |
|------|--------|-------------|
| `skills/deep-research/SKILL.md` | New | Skill definition (4-phase workflow, role templates, scoring model) |
| `skills/deep-research/references/research-roles.md` | New | 3 role prompt templates (researcher, synthesizer, validator) |
| `skills/deep-research/references/scoring-model.md` | New | 4-signal completeness scoring + confidence caps |
| `skills/deep-research/references/claim-registry.md` | New | Unified evidence model adapted from deep-explore synthesis |
| `commands/deep-research.md` | New | Command entry point + allowed-tools |
| `test/commands/deep-research.test.js` | New | Schema + content validation tests |
| `CLAUDE.template.md` | Modify | Command Quick Reference 加入 `/deep-research` |
| `CLAUDE.md` | Modify | Command Quick Reference 加入 `/deep-research` |
| `.claude/CLAUDE.md` | Modify | Command Quick Reference 加入 `/deep-research` |
## Acceptance Criteria
### AC1: Pipeline Architecture
- [x] 4-phase workflow: Scope → Parallel Research → Synthesis+GapDetect → Conditional Validation
- [x] Phase 0 produces research plan with shard assignments + token budget
- [x] Phase 1 dispatches 2-3 researcher agents in parallel (background)
- [x] Phase 2 synthesizer merges results via claim registry + computes provisional score
### AC2: Role System
- [x] 3 distinct role templates: researcher, synthesizer, validator
- [x] Researcher outputs evidence-first findings (not conclusions)
- [x] Synthesizer handles dedup, conflict resolution, gap detection
- [x] Validator runs dispute-specific checks on contested claims
### AC3: Claim Registry
- [x] Unified evidence model supports both URL (web) and file:line (code)
- [x] Dedup by canonical key (source + claim text normalization)
- [x] Conflict resolution by evidence weight (High > Medium > Low)
- [x] Unresolved conflicts escalated to validation phase
### AC4: Completeness Scoring
- [x] 4-signal model: source_diversity + cross_verification + gap_coverage + question_closure
- [x] Confidence cap applied (1.0 / 0.9 / 0.75 based on tool availability)
- [x] Score threshold gates Phase 3 debate trigger
### AC5: Mode System
- [x] `--mode exploratory` (default): uses exploratory scoring weights (diversity 30%, verification 30%, gap 25%, closure 15%)
- [x] `--mode compliance`: forces debate (`--debate force` implied), uses `best-practices` web research cascade
- [x] `--mode decision`: higher debate trigger threshold (any unresolved conflict triggers debate)
### AC6: Conditional Debate
- [x] `--debate auto` (default): trigger on P0/P1 conflict, low verification, high blast-radius
- [x] `--debate force`: always invoke `/codex-brainstorm`
- [x] `--debate off`: skip validation phase entirely
- [x] Debate uses `/codex-brainstorm` via Skill tool (not raw MCP)
### AC7: Composable Reuse
- [x] Claim registry follows `deep-explore/references/synthesis.md` schema (adapted for URL evidence)
- [x] Web research uses `best-practices` Phase 1 tool cascade (agent-browser > WebSearch > WebFetch)
- [x] Adversarial debate delegates to `/codex-brainstorm` (not reimplemented)
### AC8: Infrastructure
- [x] `commands/deep-research.md` frontmatter with correct allowed-tools
- [x] CLAUDE.md command tables updated (3 files)
- [x] Tests pass (schema + content validation) — 14/14 tests
- [x] `skills-schema.test.js` passes (no dangling refs)
## Design Decisions (from Brainstorm)
| 決策 | 選擇 | 替代方案 | 理由 |
|------|------|----------|------|
| Phase count | 4 phases | 6 phases (Codex initial) | Merge analyst+critic reduces latency + token cost without quality loss |
| Role count | 3 roles | 4 roles (+ critic) | Role prompt drift risk with 4; critic absorbed into validator |
| Scoring model | 4-signal exploratory | 2-signal (deep-explore style) | Web research needs source diversity + cross-verification, not just novelty |
| Debate trigger | Conditional (auto) | Always mandatory (best-practices style) | 15x token cost; force only for compliance mode |
| Composition | Reuse existing skills | Self-contained | Lower maintenance, consistent behavior across skills |
## Progress
- [x] Best practices audit (Phase 1-4, 5 independent sources)
- [x] Adversarial brainstorm (3 rounds, Pure Strategy Equilibrium)
- [x] Tech spec — `docs/features/deep-research/2-tech-spec.md`
- [x] Implementation — commit `7f19a57`
- [x] Testing — 14/14 tests pass (`test/commands/deep-research.test.js`)
- [x] Documentation — SKILL.md (294 lines) + 3 references + CLAUDE.md updated
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!