Research Brief

Research Brief

Turn one important question into a durable operator brief: what the answer is, what evidence supports it, what remains uncertain, and what posture the reader should take next. Use this when a quick answer is too shallow but an open-ended report would obscure the decision.

The output should feel like a thoughtful memo, not a narration of the research process. It leads with the decision and operational implication, then exposes the evidence, inference, alternatives, and unresolved questions that justify that posture.

Composes

• ghostwrite#draft
• research#local-files
• research#research

When to use it

Use research-brief for architecture choices, market or ecosystem questions, product bets, trust decisions, or other consequential analysis that needs a reader-ready synthesis. Use plain research when the evidence packet itself is the desired artifact. Use content-package when the primary outcome is public content for a known channel.

Do not use this skill for an unbounded literature review, a daily trend recap, or research whose sources have not been fetched through a governed reader.

How the chain works

1. The caller supplies the exact question and audience plus either governed source packets or bounded local paths. The local-files runner reads those paths through Runx's native filesystem boundary; it does not tunnel local evidence through HTTP.
2. The canonical research skill admits and indexes those sources, separates evidence from inference, and verifies every citation and recommendation.
3. Only a ready research packet proceeds to ghostwrite. The writing stage turns decision support into a clear brief without introducing unsupported facts.
4. The final artifact preserves the research and content packet bindings. It remains local and is not a publication claim.

Local research and drafting need no approval because they do not cross an external boundary. If the brief is later sent, posted, or published, the provider delivery skill owns approval, idempotency, acknowledgement, and readback.

Inputs and result

• objective is the exact decision question.
• source_packets are bounded governed evidence. The local-files runner accepts bounded paths below a selected local root instead. Operator context, URLs, bare paths, and model memory do not substitute for admitted evidence.
• audience and channel shape the memo's presentation.
• domain, operator_context, and target_entities keep the analysis scoped but do not count as evidence.

The result contains the citation-validated research_packet and, when evidence is ready, the evidence-bound content_draft_packet. It may finish at needs_more_evidence or not_worth_publishing rather than manufacture a memo.

Stop conditions

• Stop before drafting when no valid source survives research admission.
• Preserve uncertainty that could change the recommendation.
• Do not turn operator preference into a verified market or product fact.
• Do not add a publish or delivery state to a local brief.
• Route any outward action to its owning provider skill with the exact artifact digest and evidence packet intact.

Example

For “Should this provider become a native Runx tool?”, the source set might include its official API contract, two existing consumer implementations, and runtime measurements. The brief should recommend native ownership, package ownership, or no change; show which evidence supports that boundary; and name the remaining operational risk. It should not become a generic provider profile or imply adoption merely because the API exists.