Content Research Writer

Content Research Writer

Build useful prose from a traceable research base. Keep verified facts, source interpretation, and the writer's own argument clearly separated.

Runtime Compatibility

• Use the research and file tools available in the active runtime.
• Resolve workspace files from the user's stated project path.
• Confirm network and source access before promising current citations.
• Preserve existing drafts and user edits unless replacement is explicitly requested.

Establish The Brief

Infer available details, then fill only material gaps:

• topic and central question;
• intended audience;
• purpose and publication format;
• target length and deadline;
• voice or writing samples;
• citation style;
• required, preferred, or excluded sources.

Record uncertain assumptions before research begins.

Research Workflow

1. Create research questions

   • Convert the topic into a short list of claims the piece must establish.
   • Add questions for context, counterarguments, examples, and practical impact.

2. Choose sources

   • Prefer primary material for factual and technical claims.
   • Use reputable synthesis for context and competing interpretations.
   • Check publication date, authorship, methodology, and conflicts of interest.

3. Build a source ledger

markdownCopy code
| ID | Source | Claim Supported | Evidence | Limits | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | [title and locator] | [claim] | [fact or short note] | [caveat] | verified |

Do not put a source in the final reference list unless it was opened and used.

4. Resolve conflicts

   • Compare definitions, dates, sample populations, and measurement methods.
   • Report meaningful disagreement instead of selecting a convenient number.

5. Stop when evidence is sufficient

   • Each major factual claim has support.
   • Important counterevidence is represented.
   • Additional searching is unlikely to change the structure or conclusion.

Writing Workflow

1. Thesis

   • State the article's central answer in one or two sentences.

2. Outline

   • Give every section a job.
   • Link claims to source IDs.
   • Mark evidence gaps before drafting.

3. Draft

   • Write from the outline and source ledger.
   • Cite factual claims near the relevant sentence.
   • Use examples to explain, not to substitute for evidence.
   • Keep the user's voice, terminology, and preferred level of formality.

4. Edit

   • Check argument order, transitions, redundancy, and paragraph purpose.
   • Replace vague claims with evidence or narrower wording.
   • Remove unsupported authority cues and decorative statistics.

5. Verify

   • Open every citation again when accuracy matters.
   • Confirm names, titles, dates, quotations, quantities, and links.
   • Check that the cited source supports the exact nearby claim.

Collaboration Modes

Outline First

Return:

• thesis options;
• proposed section order;
• claim-to-source map;
• research gaps;
• questions that require the user's judgment.

Section Review

Lead with the highest-impact feedback:

• argument or evidence issue;
• structure and flow;
• audience or voice mismatch;
• concrete revision;
• citations still needed.

Do not rewrite the whole section when a focused edit would preserve more of the writer's voice.

Full Draft

Deliver the requested article and a short verification note containing:

• citation style used;
• claims still awaiting evidence;
• assumptions or source limitations;
• optional editorial alternatives.

Citation Rules

• Follow the user's requested citation format.
• Never invent a source, author, title, date, URL, quotation, or page number.
• Prefer direct links or identifiers to vague publication names.
• Quote only when exact wording is necessary; otherwise paraphrase accurately.
• Keep source notes long enough to audit but do not reproduce large passages.
• For current or changing facts, research them at the time of writing.

Voice Preservation

• Study supplied writing samples before making broad stylistic changes.
• Preserve intentional vocabulary, rhythm, and point of view.
• Distinguish correctness edits from optional stylistic suggestions.
• Avoid flattening personal prose into generic professional language.
• Ask for confirmation only when a voice choice changes meaning or audience fit.

Final Check

• The thesis answers the stated question.
• Each section advances the piece.
• Important factual claims have traceable support.
• Sources are represented fairly, including limitations and disagreement.
• Citations and reference entries agree.
• The final voice belongs to the user, not to a generic template.