Local-first multi-step research with question decomposition, parallel search, structured briefs, cross-references, and gap analysis. Use when the user needs comprehensive analysis, comparison reports, literature reviews, or says "research", "compare X vs Y", "deep dive", "thorough analysis", "find everything about". Returns a structured `brief` with `topics`, `highlights`, `key_findings`, `sections.overview.cross_references`, `sections.comparison`, `sections.gaps`.
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Comprehensive multi-source research with structured output. Beats chaining search + fetch manually for multi-source synthesis.
// Standard research
{ "question": "How does Deno 2 compare to Node.js for production?", "depth": "standard" }
// Comprehensive (more sources, deeper analysis)
{ "question": "SQLite vs PostgreSQL vs DuckDB for analytics", "depth": "comprehensive" }
// Quick factual check
{ "question": "What are the breaking changes in React 19?", "depth": "quick" }
// Domain-scoped research
{ "question": "Next.js App Router patterns", "depth": "standard", "include_domains": ["nextjs.org", "vercel.com"] }
// With structured output schema
{ "question": "Compare Prisma vs Drizzle vs TypeORM", "depth": "standard", "schema": { "type": "object", "properties": { "orm": { "type": "string" }, "bundle_size": { "type": "string" }, "type_safety": { "type": "string" } } } }| Depth | Sub-queries | Sources | Time | Use case |
|---|---|---|---|---|
quick | 2-3 | 5-8 | ~15s | Quick factual check |
standard | 4-5 | 10-15 | ~40s | Normal research (default) |
comprehensive | 6-7 | 20-25 | ~80s | Deep comparison, full review |
Override the source count for the chosen depth with max_sources (cap 50) — raise it to widen coverage, lower it to keep a run fast.
When MCP sampling is unavailable (common case), the output carries a brief:
{
"brief": {
"key_findings": [...], // top passages across all sources — start report here
"topics": [...], // sources grouped by sub-query
"sections": {
"overview": { "cross_references": [...] }, // findings corroborated by 2+ sources — most reliable
"comparison": {...}, // entity-specific points for X vs Y queries
"gaps": [...] // sub-queries / named entities with limited coverage
}
},
"sub_queries": [...],
"sources": [...],
"query_type": "..." // decomposition strategy used
}Gaps surface named sub-entities that decomposition or search could not corroborate — never silently dropped.
See wigolo/rules/synthesis.md. Quick version:
key_findings for the executive summary.sections.overview.cross_references for the most reliable claims.topics.sections.comparison (if present).sections.gaps as limitations.citations.fetch instead.agent with a schema instead.search with format: "answer".KnockOutEZ/wigolo
3507bb8
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.