Multi-Agent Research

The Process

digraph research {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=box];

    "1. PRIME" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8e8ff"];
    "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep" [style=filled, fillcolor="#ffe8e8"];
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" [style=filled, fillcolor="#fff8e0"];
    "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted" [style=filled, fillcolor="#ffe8e8"];
    "5. SYNTHESIZE" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8ffe8"];
    "6. DECIDE & RECORD" [style=filled, fillcolor="#e8e8ff"];

    "1. PRIME" -> "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep";
    "2. WAVE 1: Broad Sweep" -> "3. GAP ANALYSIS";
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" -> "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted";
    "4. WAVE 2+: Targeted" -> "3. GAP ANALYSIS" [label="still gaps", style=dashed];
    "3. GAP ANALYSIS" -> "5. SYNTHESIZE" [label="coverage sufficient"];
    "5. SYNTHESIZE" -> "6. DECIDE & RECORD";
}

Phase 1: PRIME

Actions

1. Search Sibyl first:

   sibyl search "<research topic>"
   sibyl search "<related technology>"
   sibyl search "<prior decision in this area>"

2. Check for stale knowledge:
   • If Sibyl has entries older than 3 months on fast-moving topics (frameworks, models, cloud services) → research anyway, but use existing knowledge as baseline
   • If Sibyl has recent entries → present them first, ask if deeper research is needed
3. Define the research question clearly:
   • NOT: "research databases" (too vague)
   • YES: "compare PostgreSQL vs CockroachDB for multi-region write-heavy workloads with <10ms p99 latency requirement"
4. Set the research budget:

   Depth	Agents	Time	When
   Quick scan	2-3	2-5 min	Known domain, just need latest info
   Standard	5-10	10-15 min	Technology evaluation, architecture options
   Deep dive	10-30	20-40 min	Greenfield decisions, SOTA analysis
   Exhaustive	30-60+	40-90 min	New project inception, competitive landscape

Phase 2: WAVE 1 — Broad Sweep

Agent Design Principles

• One specific topic (not "research everything about X")
• An output file path (no ambiguity about where to write)
• Search hints (include year: "search [topic] 2026")
• 8-12 numbered coverage items (scope the research precisely)
• Source quality guidance ("prefer official docs and GitHub repos over blog posts")

Wave 1 Template

Research [SPECIFIC_TOPIC] for [PROJECT/DECISION].

Create a research doc at docs/research/[filename].md covering:

1. Current state (latest version, recent changes)
2. [Specific capability A relevant to our use case]
3. [Specific capability B]
4. [Integration with our stack: list specific technologies]
5. Performance characteristics / benchmarks
6. Known limitations and gotchas
7. Community health (stars, activity, maintenance)
8. Comparison with alternatives (name 2-3 specific alternatives)

Use WebSearch for current information. Include dates on all facts.
Cite sources with URLs.

Deployment Rules

• ALL Wave 1 agents run in background — no dependencies between them
• 3-4 seconds between dispatches — avoid rate limiting
• Each agent writes its own file — no shared outputs
• Group by theme: If researching 12 topics, group into 3-4 thematic clusters

Coverage Strategy

Phase 3: GAP ANALYSIS

Actions

1. Read all Wave 1 outputs — skim each research doc
2. Identify gaps:
   • Dimensions not covered?
   • Contradictory findings between agents?
   • Questions raised but not answered?
   • Missing comparisons?
3. Check for bias:
   • Are all findings positive? (Suspicious — look for failure cases)
   • Did agents only find official docs? (Need community/real-world experience)
   • Same sources cited by multiple agents? (Need diversity)

Decision Point

Phase 4: WAVE 2+ — Targeted Research

Wave 2 Agents Are Different

• Smaller scope — one specific question per agent
• Higher quality bar — "find production experience reports, not just docs"
• Cross-reference — "Agent X found [claim]. Verify this against [alternative source]"
• Deep reads — "Read the full README and API docs for [library], not just the landing page"

When to Stop

• The research question can be answered with confidence
• Additional agents would produce diminishing returns
• You have >= 2 independent sources for key claims
• The user signals "enough, let's decide"

Phase 5: SYNTHESIZE

Synthesis Structure

## Research: [Topic]

### TL;DR
[2-3 sentences. The answer, not the journey.]

### Recommendation
[Clear choice with justification. Don't hedge — pick one.]

### Options Evaluated

| Option | Fit | Maturity | Perf | Ecosystem | Verdict |
|--------|-----|----------|------|-----------|---------|
| A | ... | ... | ... | ... | Best for [X] |
| B | ... | ... | ... | ... | Best for [Y] |
| C | ... | ... | ... | ... | Avoid: [reason] |

### Key Findings
1. [Most important finding with source]
2. [Second most important]
3. [Third most important]

### Risks & Gotchas
- [Known issue or limitation]
- [Migration complexity]
- [Hidden cost]

### Sources
- [Source 1](url) — [what it contributed]
- [Source 2](url) — [what it contributed]

Synthesis Rules

1. Lead with the recommendation. Don't make the reader wade through findings to find the answer.
2. Separate facts from opinions. "PostgreSQL supports JSONB" (fact) vs "PostgreSQL is better for this use case" (opinion backed by evidence).
3. Include dissenting evidence. If one source contradicts the recommendation, say so. Don't cherry-pick.
4. Date everything. "As of Feb 2026, [library] is at v4.2" — research spoils fast.
5. Note confidence level. "High confidence: well-documented. / Low confidence: based on one blog post."

Phase 6: DECIDE & RECORD

Actions

1. Present the synthesis to the user with a clear recommendation
2. Record in Sibyl:

   sibyl add "Research: [topic]" "Evaluated [options]. Chose [X] because [reasons]. Key risk: [Y]. Sources: [primary URLs]. Date: [today]."

3. Archive research docs — keep the wave outputs for reference:
   • If in a project:

     docs/research/[topic]/

   • If general knowledge: Sibyl learning entry is sufficient
4. Exit to next action:

   Next Step	When
   /hyperskills:brainstorm	Research surfaced multiple viable approaches
   /hyperskills:plan	Decision made, ready to decompose implementation
   /hyperskills:orchestrate	Decision made, work is parallelizable
   Direct implementation	Research confirmed a simple path

Quick Research Mode

1. Search Sibyl (always)
2. 2-3 targeted searches (WebSearch + WebFetch on key URLs)
3. Synthesize inline (no separate docs)
4. Record if non-obvious (Sibyl learning)

Research Patterns by Type

Technology Evaluation

Wave 1: Official docs + GitHub README for each option (parallel)
Wave 2: Production experience + benchmarks (parallel)
Synthesize: Comparison matrix + recommendation

Codebase Archaeology

Wave 1: Explore agents mapping each subsystem (parallel)
Wave 2: Grep for specific patterns / usage (parallel)
Synthesize: Architecture diagram + dependency map

SOTA Analysis

Wave 1: WebSearch for latest papers, blog posts, releases (parallel)
Wave 2: Deep read the most relevant 3-5 sources (parallel)
Synthesize: What's genuinely novel vs rehashed + recommendation

Competitive Landscape

Wave 1: Feature matrix for each competitor (parallel)
Wave 2: Pricing, community size, trajectory (parallel)
Synthesize: Positioning matrix + gap analysis

Anti-Patterns

What This Skill is NOT

• Not a substitute for reading code. If the answer is in the codebase, read the codebase.
• Not an infinite loop. Max 3 waves. If that's not enough, reframe the question.
• Not required for known domains. If you already know the answer, just say so and cite your knowledge.
• Not a delay tactic. Research serves a decision. If no decision follows, the research was waste.