--- name: storm-research description: Turn Claude into a multi-perspective researcher using the STORM method — analyze a topic through several distinct expert lenses, map where they contradict each other, synthesize a single ranked research report, and peer-review the result. Use this whenever the user wants deep research, a thorough analysis, a "PhD-level" or rigorous breakdown of a topic, a balanced multi-viewpoint take, a literature-review-style summary, or explicitly mentions STORM, multi-perspective research, or turning Claude into a researcher. Prefer this over a single flat answer any time the user asks to "really dig into," "research," "give me the full picture on," or "analyze from every angle" a non-trivial topic. category: research version: 1.0.0 tags: [research, analysis, multi-perspective, synthesis, storm] --- # STORM Research A four-phase research method that produces grounded, multi-perspective analysis instead of a single flat answer. Inspired by Stanford OVAL Lab's STORM paper (Shao et al., NAACL 2024), adapted into a repeatable prompt pipeline. The core idea: **don't ask one question from one angle — interrogate a topic through several distinct experts, surface where they disagree, then synthesize and self-review.** This reliably produces more organized, better-calibrated output than a one-shot answer. ## When to use Trigger this skill when the user wants genuine depth on a non-trivial topic: research requests, "analyze this from every angle," decision memos, literature-review-style summaries, contested or high-stakes questions, or any explicit mention of STORM / multi-perspective research. Skip it for simple factual lookups or quick answers — the overhead isn't worth it there. ## Two modes (pick based on the topic and any user flag) - **`--grounded` (default for current/empirical/contested topics):** Run a `web_search` for each perspective and cite sources inline. Use this whenever facts may have changed, numbers matter, or claims are disputable. - **`--reasoning` (fast, no web):** Reason from existing knowledge only. Use for conceptual, philosophical, or timeless topics, or when the user explicitly wants speed / no browsing. If the user gives no flag, infer: anything touching current events, markets, technology versions, statistics, or "what's the latest" → grounded. Pure concepts, frameworks, or thought experiments → reasoning is fine. When unsure, default to grounded. ## Phase control The user controls how the four phases run. Match their earlier instruction if they gave one; otherwise ask once at the start: - **Auto (one pass):** Run all four phases and return the full report in a single response. - **Step-by-step:** Run one phase, show the output, and pause for the user to say "continue" before the next. Good for steering mid-research. If the user hasn't indicated a preference and the topic is large, default to step-by-step so they can course-correct. For quick topics, auto is fine. --- ## The Four Phases Run these in order. Full prompt templates and the exact expert-lens definitions live in `references/phases.md` — read that file before executing so you use the precise wording and structure. ### Phase 1 — Multi-Perspective Scan Analyze the topic through **five distinct expert lenses**, each with its own priorities, blind spots, and vocabulary: 1. **Practitioner** — what actually works in the field, hands-on tradeoffs 2. **Researcher / Academic** — evidence base, theory, what's proven vs. hypothesized 3. **Skeptic / Critic** — failure modes, weak assumptions, what could be wrong 4. **Economist / Incentives** — costs, benefits, who gains, second-order effects 5. **Historian / Context** — how we got here, prior attempts, what's genuinely new In `--grounded` mode, search per lens and cite. Keep each lens genuinely distinct — do not let them collapse into the same voice. ### Phase 2 — Contradiction Map Cross-examine the five perspectives: - Where do they **directly disagree**, and on what? - Which claims have the **strongest evidence**? Which are **weakest / most speculative**? - What did **every** perspective miss (blind spots common to all)? - Which disagreements are **empirical** (resolvable with data) vs. **values-based** (won't resolve)? ### Phase 3 — Synthesis Combine everything into **one coherent research report**: - A clear thesis / bottom line up top - **Ranked findings** — most to least well-supported, with confidence noted - Actionable insights or recommendations - Open questions that remain genuinely unresolved ### Phase 4 — Peer Review Have Claude critically grade its own Phase 3 report: - **Overall confidence** (0–100%) with justification - **Weakest claim** in the report and why - **Bias check** — what viewpoint is over/under-weighted? - **Missing angles** — perspectives or evidence not covered - One concrete revision that would most improve it --- ## Output conventions - Label each phase clearly (`## Phase 1 — Multi-Perspective Scan`, etc.). - In grounded mode, cite sources for factual claims; keep the five lenses visibly separate. - Keep the report readable prose, not a wall of bullets — reserve ranked lists for the findings in Phase 3 and the review in Phase 4. - End Phase 4 with a one-line honest verdict on how much to trust the report. For the full prompt wording and lens details, see `references/phases.md`.