--- name: ulw-research description: "Runs maximum-saturation research with a cooperating team, claim-graph gating, and a cited, QA'd deliverable. Use when the user explicitly asks for research or a deep investigation, including any 'ulw' research wording." argument-hint: "" metadata: short-description: Team-default saturation research with debate cross-critique and cited synthesis --- # ULW-RESEARCH — Team-First Maximum-Saturation Research You are the research orchestrator AND the team lead. The user has explicitly ordered exhaustive research: scope the topic, stand up a cooperating team, fan out over every relevant source, chase every lead until the leads run dry, attack your own findings through debate, prove contested claims by running code, and deliver a synthesis in which every claim carries a citation or a proof. Exhaustive coverage is the assignment, not a risk to manage. ## Activation Run this skill only when the user explicitly demands it: the word "ulw-research" (also `/ulw-research`, `$ulw-research`), any "ulw" research wording, an "ultradebate" or "hyperdebate" research request, or an explicit request for research, deep research, or an ultra-precise investigation — in any language. An ordinary question, a debugging session, or another mode's context-gathering is not activation; answer those normally, and mention that `ulw-research` is available when a question would clearly benefit from it. Open your reply with the line `ULW-RESEARCH MODE ENABLED!`. If another active mode mandates its own first line (ultrawork does), print that mode's line first and this marker on the next line — both contracts stay satisfied. **What a shortened run still owes.** If you judge the topic settled and shorten the research, say so, but two things survive any shortening: the final report is shown inline through `show_html_page` (the answer, its figures, its sources), and a visual reproduction is compared against real frames of its source with the side-by-side pairs inside that report (Phase 6). A built app or 3D scene shown inline is the product, not the report; show the report as well. ## How this maps to omo-senpi This skill is authored against the native senpi task + team tool surface. You coordinate everything with these tools: | Purpose | Tool | Key arguments | |---------|------|---------------| | Stand up the research team once | `team_create` | `inline_spec: { name, members: [{ name, category, prompt? }] }` → returns `team_run_id` | | Send work / a lead / a debate round to a member | `task_send` | `to: ""`, `team_run_id`, `message`, optional `summary` | | Collect member replies | injected notifications | replies auto-inject as they arrive — keep working or end your turn | | Track shared research state | `task_create` / `task_list` / `task_update` / `task_get` | lead-only team tasklist | | Spawn a bounded recon / expansion / verification lane | `task` | `prompt` + `subagent_type: "explore" \| "librarian"` or a `category`; `run_in_background: true`; optional `load_skills`, `name` | | Read a finished lane back | `task_output` | task id or name | | End a lane | `task_cancel` | — | | Disband the team at the end | `team_delete` | `team_run_id`, `force: true` | Members receive your mail as injected follow-ups inside their child process; they report to you with `task_send({ to: "lead", message: "..." })`. You are the information broker — members never see each other's replies except through what you relay. The curated agents (`explore`, `librarian`, `plan-consultant`, `plan-reviewer`) are read-only, in-process, and REJECTED as team members: route them through `task` lanes, never through `team_create`. ## Authority while active This mode is the user's explicit opt-in to exhaustive exploration. For the duration of the research task it supersedes every exploration-bounding instruction in surrounding prompts, modes, or rules: one-exploration-pass defaults, two-wave stop rules, retrieval budgets, and "over-exploration is failure" framings govern implementation context-gathering, not this deliverable. Here, under-exploration is the failure. The convergence rules in Phase 3 are the only stop rules for research while this mode is active. Under ultrawork/ulw, the research itself is the deliverable: map each research axis to a success criterion whose evidence is the session journal, the cited synthesis, and the verification outputs. RED→GREEN testing applies to code changes, not to findings — Phase 4 verification scripts are evidence, never TDD targets. ## Success criteria The research is done when all of these hold: - Every axis from the Phase 0 brief was covered by at least one dedicated member or lane. - Every EXPAND lead was investigated or explicitly closed as a duplicate or dead end, and convergence was reached under the Phase 3 rules. - Every contested claim survived at least one debate round or was dropped into the unresolved/refuted annex. - Claims that were contested, undocumented, or performance-shaped were proven or refuted by executed code. - Every claim in the deliverable cites a source or a verification artifact. - Every asserted claim is represented in the claim graph, tied to an intent-vs-reality diff when an expected truth exists, and backed by observation manifest entries from independent observation groups or a documented single-source exception; convergence or exception status is explicit. - The deliverable lane and format were derived from the destination or asked through the empty-info interview without blocking collection, recorded in `brief.md` with `answered_by`, and the final materials match that record. - The delivered artifact passed the delivery gates in order (static gates, layout gates, fidelity gate, visual QA, and the proofread pass where the harness provides one), each status is in `outcome.json`, and `outcome verify` passed. - Every excursion opened during the run was closed by an EXIT rule, folded back into the claim or axis that triggered it, and recorded in both `excursion-log.md` and the ulw-loop ledger. - When this session has `show_html_page`, the report was shown inline in the thread before the artifact paths. - When the ask reproduces a visual source, the report carries side-by-side pairs of real source frames and the output rendered at the same moments, each with its critique, and the differences they surfaced were fixed or listed as gaps. A simple or well-understood topic shortens the research, never this comparison. - The delivery message carries the closing briefing printed by `outcome briefing`: sources (total + unique domains), elapsed minutes, every promised deliverable with its status, and any residual defects. - The session journal reconstructs what was searched, found, expanded, and debated, wave by wave, and it was written in real time rather than reconstructed at the end. - The team was disbanded (`team_delete`) and every lane reached terminal status before the final answer. ## Epistemic instrumentation Saturation is not just more searching; it is a knowledge-production protocol. The session journal must make the path from observation to claim to verdict auditable. The orchestrator owns these artifacts — members and lanes NEVER write session files (a mass-research dag node writes only its own `waves//.md` handoff file, which carries its EXPAND tail and claim candidates; you journal from it): - `intent-diff.md` — one row per expected truth derived from the user intent, design/spec text, branch history, or authoritative docs. Required fields: `intent_id`, expected truth, observed reality, diff, violated invariant, intent source, supporting observations, status (`true`, `violated`, or `unknown`), and linked claim ids. - `claim-graph.md` — the single claim store; one node per claim. Required fields: `claim_id`, statement, claim type, risk tier, scope, intent ids, supporting observations, contradicting observations, independent observation groups, convergence status, counter-search result, primary source backing, dependencies, status (`supported`, `partial`, `refuted`, or `unresolved`), `fact_ids` (the ledger rows the claim rests on), and final synthesis location. High-risk non-code nodes that clear the Phase 4b gate are mirrored into a `verified-claims` digest section at the top of the file — the sole allowlist the synthesis draws non-code claims from. - `observation-manifest.md` — one row per observation. Required fields: `observation_id`, source path or URL, evidence layer, observer group, independence basis, observer, `observed_at`, `valid_at` or `claim_valid_at`, artifact path, quote or line anchor, and contamination notes. - `sources/` and `fact-ledger.json` — the source snapshots and the verbatim fact ledger ([references/fact-ledger.md](references/fact-ledger.md)). Every number and every direct quotation in the report comes from a ledger row through a `{{F:label}}` or `{{Q:label}}` placeholder; nobody types a value into a report or into `SYNTHESIS.md`. - `verification-economics.md` — one row per proof decision. Required fields: claim, risk, error cost, verification cost/time, chosen verification path, defer/verify decision, outcome, and residual risk. - `cause-disappearance.md` — one row per causal finding. Required fields: cause id, expected truth, previous observation, `last_seen`, disconfirming observation, replacement cause if any, current status, and whether the violation is no longer observed. - `excursion-log.md` — one ENTER row and one EXIT row per excursion. Required fields: `excursion_id`, parent claim or axis, ENTER trigger, depth, workers spent, EXIT rule that closed it, what it changed in the top-level answer (`none` is a valid, required answer), and the ulw-loop steer/evidence id it was mirrored into. - `debate-log.md` — one row per debate round: the claim under attack, the attacker's argument, the defender's evidence, your verdict, and what changed in the claim graph because of it. Observation candidates, claim candidates, and EXPAND leads travel back from members and lanes as message text (except a mass-research dag node's handoff file). You write the instrumentation artifacts, link candidates into the intent diff and claim graph, and record where each observation entered the synthesis. A conclusion is not ready for final materials until its expected truth/reality diff is closed or marked unknown, its claim node exists, and its independent-observation convergence status is supported or explicitly excepted. ## Phase 0 — Scope solo, organize the brief Before spawning anything, decompose the query YOURSELF with your own direct tools: a handful of fast searches, a skim of the obvious codebase or doc territory, one eval cell batching the independent lookups. This is a scoping pass, not research — minutes, not waves. Start from "what must be true if the user's intent/spec is true?", not "what looks broken?" ``` Core question: Axes (3+ orthogonal): ... Codebase relevant: · External: · Collection: · Verification likely: · X/social signal: Scale: · Precision demand: → lifecycle: Debate need: ``` `Collection` is `search-only` only when a result snippet settles every axis (a date, a version, a spec value); anything that needs reading a source is `browser`. Then create the session directory and write the brief: ```bash mkdir -p .omo/ulw-research/$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S) ``` This is `$SESSION_DIR`. Write `brief.md` into it: the analysis block, the axis list with one named owner per axis, the expected truths seeding `intent-diff.md`, and the team roster you are about to create. The brief is what the team is built FROM — a team stood up before the brief exists is a failure mode (see the table at the end). ### Run it as a loop, and journal in real time ulw-loop is ON by default for this mode: register the research axes as loop goals from a JS eval cell (import the SDK once, const { agentToolkit } = await import(`${env("OMO_AGENT_TOOLKIT_SDK_ROOT")}/sdk.js`), then `agentToolkit.createGoals({ brief })`, then `create_goal` from the returned handoff) so the run has durable state and survives a compaction. The session directory's timestamp is the run's start clock — the closing briefing is computed from it, so create it once and never rename it. From that point every finding, source, quote, number, and lead is written into `$SESSION_DIR` **the instant it lands** — never held in the conversation for an end-of-run dump. After any context loss, re-read the brief, the journal, and `agentToolkit.status()` (re-import the SDK if the kernel restarted) before doing anything else, then resume from the open wave. ### Deliverable lane, format, and the empty-info interview Never block collection on the shape of the deliverable, and never guess it either. Read [references/deliverable-phase.md](references/deliverable-phase.md) sections 1-6 before writing the brief, then: 1. **Derive first.** Name the lane (`template-strict`, `template-vibe`, `no-format`, `edit-existing`) and the promised formats from the request and its destination (the reference's section 3). When the request refers to an existing deliverable, decide its state with `node "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/report-tools.mjs" outcome state --deliverable --session-dir "$SESSION_DIR"`: `partial` resumes the skeleton on disk, `complete` means edit-existing and never a regenerated report. `$SKILL_DIR` is this skill's own directory, the folder containing this SKILL.md. 2. **Read the requester's format memory** when the memory tool exists: `read` the projected pointer `system/human/report-style.md`, then `reference/human-report-style.md`, and take the choice recorded for the most similar context (same destination kind and audience) as the first option. 3. **Ask only what is still missing**: at most the reference's three questions (destination and format, audience and length, template lineage) in one `ask_user_question` call with `waitForAnswer: false`, each with its default first, a free-text "describe the format" path, and "don't care, you decide". Collection starts without waiting; a late answer is folded in until the assembly lane starts, and after that it becomes a re-render request. 4. **Settle source fidelity in the same step.** Seven fields under `## Fidelity` in `brief.md` say what the report must stay faithful to; the reference's section 4 lists each field's values and default. Infer every field before asking anything; an explicit word in the request decides a field (`answered_by: request`), the destination, the sources, and the Phase 0 axes supply the rest (`answered_by: default`): - `as of`: a version, release, tag, commit, date, quarter, "as of", "current", or "latest" in the request decides it; a pointed-at repository anchors on its HEAD or tag at run start, pointed-at documents on their own revisions, and a comparison of two anchors records `multiple: , ; rows tagged`. Default `latest at run start, `, the date of the `$SESSION_DIR` timestamp. Ask when the topic is version-bound or time-sensitive (software, APIs, standards, prices, rates, rankings, laws, programs, schedules) and nothing names an anchor; a stable topic takes the default silently. - `meaning check`: the QA tier decides (full: `on`, light: `off`); a chat answer on a legal, medical, financial, procurement, or public-facing question with no speed word is `on`. Ask when two explicit signals disagree: a document deliverable under a literal "quick" or "fast", or a light-tier answer that carries both a speed word and a precision demand; `on` goes first. - `source floor`: "official docs only", "peer-reviewed only", "SEC filings" give `primary only` or `classes: `; "from these only" gives `pointed only: `; pointed-at sources with no restricting word are seeds, not a floor. Default `standard`. Ask when a restricting phrase sits beside an open-ended question whose answer lives outside that floor. Declare each source's provenance when you snapshot it (`source snapshot --provenance primary|secondary`, by the Phase 4b primary-source rule); `primary only` refuses every source not declared `primary`. - `derived numbers`: "compare", "growth", "share", "estimate" give `allowed`; "only the sources' own numbers", "no estimates" give `none`. Default `allowed`. Ask when both kinds of phrase share one request. Record only `allowed` or `none` (any other value stops `fact fill` and `fact verify` with a usage error); a partial or free-text answer records `none`. - `languages` (never asked): the report in the user's language or the one they named; sources `en`, plus the user's language for a local topic, plus the pointed-at documents' languages; quotes `original` when every source language equals the report language, else `original with translation beside`. - `identifier classes` (never asked): from the Phase 0 axes' domain (software: version strings, package names, commit ids; finance: tickers, filing ids, fiscal periods; law: statute, article, and case numbers; science: gene names, DOIs, trial ids), else `none`. It is recorded only; no gate enforces it yet. - `fallback` (never asked): `block-quote`, or `omit` on "drop anything you cannot verify"; no other value is accepted. Ask nothing when the request, the destination, and the sources decide every field. Otherwise ask only the fields whose trigger fired, in the same `ask_user_question` call as the format questions, with `waitForAnswer: false`, each with its default first, a free-text path, and "don't care, you decide" (it resolves to the first option, recorded `answered_by: user`). At most four questions ride in that call: `pending` fidelity fields first, then format Q1, Q2, Q3, then `as of`, `meaning check`, `source floor`, `derived numbers`; a question that loses its slot runs on its default and is named, with that default, in the reply that opens collection. When each reading of a field would make part of the request undeliverable, record it `pending` with no default. Collection starts regardless: `source snapshot`, `fact add`, `fact quote`, `fact derive`, `fact retract`, and `fact export` keep working while answers are pending; only the six reader-facing commands (`fact fill`, `fact verify`, `fact pairs`, `fact meaning-check`, `fact polish-apply`, `fact polish-diff`) and the assembly lane wait for the lock, and those commands exit 1 with `fidelity_interview_incomplete` while a field is `pending` or missing. When the assembly lane is about to start, a field still awaiting its answer keeps its default; a `pending` field is asked once more, blocking this time. 5. **Record it.** Write `## Deliverable` into `brief.md` (lane, state, formats, destination, audience, template, format description, each with `answered_by: user|default|request`) plus `## Fidelity` (the block below), and open the manifest in the same step: `node "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/report-tools.mjs" outcome init --promised --lane --session-dir "$SESSION_DIR"`. When the ask is to recreate, reproduce, or rebuild something visual, add `Reference compare: required` with the source (URL or file) and the moments to compare; the comparison runs on every round of the build, not only at the end. #### The fidelity questions Ask them in the user's language, translating these English texts faithfully and keeping the option order; `` is the `$SESSION_DIR` date. - **`as of`**, header `As of`: "Which version or date must the facts hold for? Sources are snapshotted and quoted against that anchor." 1. `Latest as of today, ` - The state published at the run's start; anything older is flagged as stale. 2. `Other: a named version, release, or date` - Type it (v3.2, 2026-Q3, a commit or tag). Every quote and number is checked against sources valid at that anchor. 3. `Don't care, you decide` - Resolves to option 1. - **`meaning check`**, header `Drift check`: "Numbers and quotes are always script-checked against source snapshots. Should every explanatory sentence also be read against its source quote by a separate reader? Slower and more tokens; it catches widened scope and dropped hedges." 1. `On` - Every sentence is paired with its source and read; confirmed drift is rewritten from the quote or listed in the briefing. 2. `Off (faster)` - Script checks only: numbers, units, quotes, qualifiers, bindings. A paraphrase that shifts meaning is not read. 3. `Other: where to focus` - Type it ("the financial sections", "anything about the competitor"); those pairs go to the strongest reader. 4. `Don't care, you decide` - Resolves to option 1. - **`source floor`**, header `Sources`: "Which sources may back a statement of fact?" 1. `Standard: primary source required for high-risk claims` - Numeric, legal, financial, dated, and causal claims need a primary source plus two independent domains; other claims may cite attributed secondary sources. 2. `Primary only` - Every fact traces to a first-party source (standard, filing, dataset, official doc); commentary appears only as attributed opinion. 3. `Only the sources I pointed at` - Ledger rows come from the named files and URLs only; anything else is context, not evidence. 4. `Other: name the source classes` - Type it ("peer-reviewed only", "no vendor blogs"). 5. `Don't care, you decide` - Resolves to option 1. - **`derived numbers`**, header `Derived`: "May the report state numbers no source states (sums, growth rates, shares, unit conversions, estimates)?" 1. `Yes, computed by script and labeled DERIVED` - Each one names its operation and input rows; inputs are checked for unit, period, and population compatibility; an estimate carries its assumptions. 2. `No, sourced numbers only` - Every number is a MEASURED ledger value; comparisons are stated in words or shown side by side. 3. `Other: describe` - Type it ("growth rates yes, estimates no"). A partial allowance is recorded as `none`, and the reply that opens collection says so. 4. `Don't care, you decide` - Resolves to option 1. #### The `## Fidelity` block Write it in the same step as `## Deliverable`, provisional defaults included, one line per field with its `answered_by`, plus an `asked:` line naming the fidelity questions sent: ```text ## Fidelity as of: latest at run start, 2026-10-23 (answered_by: default) meaning check: on (answered_by: default) source floor: standard (answered_by: default) derived numbers: pending (answered_by: pending) languages: report en; sources en; quotes original (answered_by: default) identifier classes: version strings, package names, commit ids (answered_by: default) fallback: block-quote (answered_by: default) asked: derived numbers ``` Values carry no parentheses; `pending` goes only with `answered_by: pending`. When an answer lands, rewrite that one line with `answered_by: user` and leave `asked:` as history; a late answer after `fact fill` is a re-render: fill again, then verify. **Re-entry.** An `edit-existing` session, or any session created before this block existed, has no `## Fidelity`. Before any `fact` command, run the inference step above and write the block with `answered_by: default` on every field. `claims index` on a free-form `claim-graph.md` (no claim table) returns `{claims: [], errors: [...]}`, exits 2, and writes no `claims.json`; run `fact verify` without it, and the gate reports each unbound sentence as `unbound_sentence` (major) instead of blocking. **Calibration.** `fact meaning-check` appends one line per flagged pair to `--calibration` (default `$SESSION_DIR/fidelity-calibration.jsonl`). After each run, also append that run's new lines to the workspace-level `.omo/ulw-research/fidelity-calibration.jsonl`; promotion of `meaning_drift_confirmed` is decided from that log. Phase 6 opens by turning the recorded fields into `design-spec.md`. ## Phase 1 — Stand up the team (DEFAULT composition) **When the user asked for MASS research, the team is not the collection surface.** "mass ulw research", "mulw research", "ulw mass research" — in any language — order over-collection that 8 member slots cannot produce. Read `mass-ulw`'s `references/planning.md` and define collection in full before `start`, as its Mass research section lays out: 60+ angles, each a `harvest -> expand -> verify` chain, reduced through per-cluster slice reducers into one final reducer. Everything else in this skill still binds: the deliverable interview, the journal, the claim graph, the convergence rules, and the delivery gates. Keep a small team alongside the graph for the debate rounds of Phase 3 — attack is conversation, and dag nodes do not talk. Otherwise a team is the DEFAULT for ulw-research, not an option: a lead one member surfaces almost always reshapes what another should search next, and debate needs live cooperating members, not fire-and-forget workers. Create it immediately after the brief: ``` team_create({ inline_spec: { name: "ulw-research-", members: [ { name: "", category: "deep-low", prompt: "" }, { name: "", category: "deep-low", prompt: "" }, ... { name: "skeptic", category: "ultrabrain", prompt: "" }, ], }, }) ``` - **One member per axis — by part, ownership, or perspective, never a job title.** Each Phase 0 axis is one member owning one concrete slice: a codebase part, a source territory, or a question lens. No two members share an angle. "Backend researcher" or "the web person" gives no real boundary and invites overlap — name what the member owns. - **Always the maximum roster.** The team is not sized by taste: fill every member slot the runtime allows (8) on every run. If you can only name five axes, split the broadest one — by source territory, by time window, by perspective — until the roster is full. A half-empty team is a half-covered topic. - **Compose deliberately across the whole category surface.** Before writing the roster, enumerate what this session actually has: every category your `omo.json` defines (`quick`, `unspecified-low`, `unspecified-high`, `deep`, `ultrabrain`, `architect`, `writing`, `artistry`, ...) and every non-curated `subagent_type`. Give each slot the cheapest tier that can do ITS job — broad recon on the fast tiers, contested analysis on `deep`/`unspecified-high`, attack lanes on `ultrabrain`, language work on `writing`. Mixed tiers by design, never one tier across the whole board. A category member must also carry its brief as `prompt` (the runtime requires both), and a `subagent_type` member must name a non-curated agent — a member with neither is rejected at parse. NEVER name a curated agent (`explore`, `librarian`, `plan-consultant`, `plan-reviewer`) as a member — the runtime rejects them; they run as `task` lanes instead. - **Routing words from the user are literal.** "quick", "fast", "deep", "all quick", "max parallel" are hard instructions, not mood. Route exactly as asked and journal `requested tier -> spawned category -> fallback reason` for every slot. Silently promoting a "quick" roster to a heavier tier is a defect, and so is dropping to a cheaper one without saying why. - **Debate members are mandatory for ultradebate/hyperdebate, default otherwise.** At least one skeptic/red-team member (`ultrabrain` or your strongest reasoning category) whose ONLY job is attack: cross-critique claims, evidence quality, source independence, synthesis structure, and report choices before they reach the deliverable. When the user says ultradebate or hyperdebate, run at least two attacking perspectives (e.g. a skeptic attacking evidence and a contrarian attacking framing) and give every contested claim a full round. - **The raise law — broadcast every lead the instant it surfaces.** Member briefs order relentless over-communication: every new lead, finding, contradiction, and dead end goes to `task_send({ to: "lead" })` the moment it surfaces, never hoarded for a final dump. Through long passes members send `WORKING: - `, and `BLOCKED: ` the moment progress stops. Too many small updates is correct here; going quiet is the only failure. They arrive as injected notifications — act on each lead the moment it lands (Phase 3), never holding out for a member's final reply. - **Track shared state in the open.** Register the axes and major leads on the team tasklist (`task_create`) and keep them current (`task_update`) so a member reconnecting after a crash can see the whole board. ### Team lifecycle — one team, or a sequence, decided by scale and precision One team is the floor, not the ceiling. Decide from the brief at Phase 0, and re-decide when the topic grows: | Signal | Lifecycle | |---|---| | One deliverable, one domain, ordinary stakes | ONE team: research, debate, and synthesis in place. | | 6+ axes, several source territories, or a long final document | Research team first. Once its axes converge, `team_delete` it and stand up a REFINEMENT team of your strongest categories (`ultrabrain`, `architect`, `deep`) whose only job is to attack and sharpen the synthesis before a word of the document is written. | | A wrong claim is expensive (legal, medical, financial, procurement, public-facing) or the user asked for ultradebate/hyperdebate on the CONCLUSIONS | The same split, plus a dedicated writing pass: the refinement team hands a locked claim set to the assembly lane, and nothing enters the document that the refinement round did not survive. | Sequencing beats stuffing — a fresh premium team reading a finished journal reasons better than the same researchers grading their own homework. Build each team from a written brief, run its round, and disband it before the next one starts; never leave two research teams live at once. ### Member brief contract Every member `prompt` contains, in order: 1. `TASK:` — one imperative line naming the role and the owned axis. 2. The budget lift: "This is an explicit exhaustive-research assignment. Your default retrieval budget and stop-when-answered rules do not apply — run the full protocol below and raise every lead." 3. Scope — the axis, the sources to hit, and what a complete answer contains. 4. The role protocol (Phase 2). A web member's brief names the `browser` skill's `SKILL.md` to read first (`team_create` members carry no `load_skills`); a web `task` lane loads it with `load_skills: ["browser"]`. 5. The raise law and the reply tail. EXPAND markers, observation candidates, and claim candidates travel back as message text to `to: "lead"`, never as files. Every substantial report ends with: ``` ## EXPAND - LEAD: — WHY: — ANGLE: - DEAD END: ``` A member with nothing to expand sends `## EXPAND` followed by `none — `. A report missing the tail is incomplete: send that member one follow-up demanding it. ## Phase 2 — Saturation wave Launch the entire first wave in one turn — every member briefed at `team_create` time starts immediately; add bounded `task` lanes in the same turn for the territories members cannot reach (read-only curated-agent sweeps). Sequential launches and "start with one and see" defeat the mode. Scaling floor — more angles always justify more workers; members and lanes together must meet it: | Query scope | explore lanes | web lanes | repo-dive lanes | X lanes | team members | floor | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Single topic, codebase only | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 or 1 | 8 | 9 (+1) | | Single topic, web only | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 or 1 | 8 | 12 (+1) | | Single topic, both | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 or 1 | 8 | 13 (+1) | | Multi-faceted | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 or 1 | 8 | 17 (+1) | | Full due diligence | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 or 1 | 8 | 18 (+1) | X lanes is 1 on every row when the brief says `X/social signal: yes` and 0 otherwise; the `(+1)` in the floor column applies only in the yes case, so a `Multi-faceted` run with X signal must field 18 workers, not 17. **Disambiguate before you expand.** When the topic names something that could resolve several ways — a product, a person, a codename, a version — the first wave settles WHICH entity before any lane researches its history, benchmarks, or controversies: canonical name, first-party URL or account, whether it exists in the claimed category, and a confidence line. An unresolved entity never becomes a premise in a later wave's prompt; that is exactly how a run starts inventing facts about something that does not exist. Role protocols — embed the relevant one in each member brief or lane prompt; every worker gets a unique angle: - **Codebase (`explore` lane or member).** Grep with 3+ keyword variations; structural/AST search; LSP definitions and references; file-name globs; `git log --all -S ''` and `--grep` for history including deleted code. Cross-validate hits across tools. Report absolute file paths, patterns with `file:line`, and how findings connect. - **Web (member or category `task` lane, carrying the `browser` skill).** Search with 10+ websearch queries per worker, each with a different operator or angle (see Search craft); a result is a candidate, not a source. Read every candidate in the user's browser through the `browser` skill's attached engine: one named session per worker, one tab per source, several tabs open side by side while sources are compared — `session.tabCreate` / `tabSelect` / `tabClose` from the eval kernel, `bsk tab create --url ` / `tab select ` / `tab close ` / `tab list` on the CLI — the page scrolled to its end, a full-page screenshot of each top source saved as provenance, the tab closed once reported. A browser on another machine is reached through the `browser` skill's remote reference or a user-level skill that bridges to it, never replaced by a local headless one. `webfetch` is for raw files only: PDF, JSON, feeds, sitemaps. A host the browser cannot open (WAF, bot score, 403) goes to `ultimate-browsing`, whose provenance travels with the claim: a `snapshot` result cites its `snapshot_timestamp` and is never stated as the live page; a `proxy` result is `untrusted` until a second independent route agrees. grep.app and `gh search code|repos|issues` for real-world usage; official docs via sitemap discovery (`/sitemap.xml`), then targeted pages. A worker whose sources are all `fetch`/`curl` text has searched, not read. - **X / social (`x_search`, only when xAI is connected).** Run `tool_search "X posts"` first; if `x_search` activates, read the x-search skill and run the lane with its rules: from_date >= yesterday for time-sensitive topics (widen to 7 days), allowed_x_handles for the trusted accounts the brief names, latest/recent phrasing with since:/from:/filter: operators, 2-3 split searches (by handle, by keyword), one x_search call per search; give the lane to a `librarian` lane or a category member (curated explore cannot call it); record the `Queries used:` trailer as provenance and reconcile every X-only claim against the web lane before it enters the claim graph. If `tool_search` finds nothing, xAI is not connected: record `x_search: unavailable` in the brief and skip the lane. - **Repo deep-dive (`librarian` lane).** Shallow-clone the most relevant repos to `${TMPDIR:-/tmp}`, pin the HEAD SHA, read core modules, follow call chains, return SHA-pinned permalinks. Curated-agent lane ground rules: - **Read-only.** Curated lanes cannot write files. Never ask any worker to write the journal or any session file — every journal write is yours. - **No recursion — lanes AND members.** Lanes cannot spawn their own subagents, and members must not re-orchestrate: a member researches its axis and reports; it never creates its own team, loads this skill, or fans out a research swarm of its own. Depth comes from YOUR expansion waves. Say so in every member brief — a member that starts its own research protocol burns the run's budget on duplicated orchestration and returns nothing you can cite. - **Built-in brakes.** Workers ship with their own retrieval budgets ("stop when answered"). Your spawn prompt must explicitly lift the budget and demand the EXPAND tail, or the worker returns a thin single-pass answer with no leads. ## Phase 3 — Expand and debate until convergence This loop is what makes the mode research rather than search. Collect returns as they land via injected notifications — peek a running lane with `task_output({ mode: "tail" })` when you need its transcript mid-run — and act on each raised lead the moment it arrives: 1. Journal the return the moment it lands, never at the end of the wave: digest plus verbatim EXPAND markers into `wave---.md`, and append each new source, quote, and number to `sources-ledger.md` and `observation-manifest.md` in the same beat. Real-time journaling is what makes the run survivable — after a compaction the journal, not your memory, is the state. Snapshot each source the moment it is read (`node "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/report-tools.mjs" source snapshot --id S --url --session-dir "$SESSION_DIR"`; a page read in the browser is saved and imported with `--html `, recorded as lower-trust `model` extraction), then register every number and quote you will use from that snapshot: `fact add --source S --find "" --label OR ` | Coverage | | `before:` / `after:` | ` after:2025-06-01` | Recency control | - X search operators: `since:YYYY-MM-DD until:YYYY-MM-DD from:handle filter:links -filter:replies lang:ko`; always phrase time-sensitive queries as latest/recent. High-yield combinations: official docs (`site:`), GitHub implementations (`site:github.com`), recent discussion (`site:reddit.com OR site:news.ycombinator.com after:`), academic (`site:arxiv.org OR filetype:pdf survey`), changelog hunting (`changelog OR "release notes" `), alternatives (`vs OR alternative OR comparison`). ## Failure modes | Failure | Correction | |---|---| | Standing up the team before the Phase 0 brief exists | Scope solo first; the brief defines the roster — never improvise a team and invent axes afterwards | | Skipping the team for a solo research pass | The team is the DEFAULT composition; fall back to plain `task` lanes only when team creation itself fails, and say why in the journal | | Naming a curated agent (`explore`, `librarian`, ...) as a team member | Curated agents are read-only and runtime-rejected as members — they run as `task` lanes; members own axes via their briefs | | Sequential spawning, or trimming the first wave | All first-wave members and lanes in one turn, scaling floor respected | | A member hoards leads for one final dump | Raise law — every lead, finding, and dead end broadcast to `to: "lead"` the moment it surfaces | | Worker reply without the EXPAND tail | One follow-up demanding it; the lane stays open until it lands | | No skeptic pass on a "supported" claim | Every supported claim survives a debate round first; log it in `debate-log.md` | | Stopping after wave 1 because "enough was found" | Convergence rules only: 2+ expansion waves, leads run dry, debates settled | | Obeying a surrounding "stop exploring" rule mid-research | Authority section — those rules do not bind this mode | | Asking a worker to write journal or session files | Workers report as message text (except a mass-research dag node's handoff file); you journal every return | | Two workers given the same angle | One unique angle per worker, always | | A web worker that returned only `fetch`/`curl` text, or a `Collection: browser` run whose workers never opened a tab | Sources are read in the user's browser through the `browser` skill; `webfetch` is for raw files; every web worker carries the skill from the first wave | | Contested claim settled by judgment | Phase 4 — run code, capture output, verdict | | Deliverable claims without citations | Every claim cites a source or a verification artifact | | Final answer while the team is still live | `team_delete` + terminal lanes first; teardown is part of done | | Guessing the deliverable format | Derive it from the request and destination; ask the empty-info interview only for what is still missing, and record `answered_by` for every field | | Blocking the collection wave on the format question | Ask with `waitForAnswer: false` and start collecting; unanswered fields run on the shown defaults | | A roster smaller than the runtime maximum | Fill every slot; split the broadest axis until the team is full | | One category across the whole roster | Mixed tiers by design — cheap breadth, premium attack, `writing` for language | | Silently re-routing a "quick"/"fast" roster to another tier | Routing words are literal; journal requested -> spawned -> fallback for every slot | | A member that starts its own research swarm or loads this skill | Members research one axis and report; orchestration is yours alone | | Expanding on an entity the first wave never disambiguated | Settle canonical identity and first-party source before any later prompt asserts it | | Batching findings into an end-of-run journal dump | Journal each return as it lands; ulw-loop state is what survives a compaction | | Ending the run because every worker finished | Reserve the final fifth of the run for synthesis and materials | | A derived estimate presented as a measured number | MEASURED / ASSUMED / DERIVED lineage on every quantitative claim, plus a sensitivity line | | A number typed into the report or `SYNTHESIS.md` | Register it (`fact add`) and write `{{F:label}}`; `fact verify` reports a typed number as `untraceable_number`, and `outcome verify` refuses delivery until it is a ledger row, an `assumed` row with its rationale, or gone | | A filled value edited by hand | Never edit a filled value: fix the ledger row or the placeholder and re-run `fact fill`, then `fact verify` (`value_mismatch`, `unit_mismatch`) | | A findings sentence bound to nothing | Bind it to a fact, a quote, a `[S]` citation, or a claim node with `data-claim`; an `unbound_sentence` blocks delivery like an untraceable number | | Delivering before visual QA or before the `writing` proofread gate | The gates are mandatory and ordered; a typo the user finds means the gate did not run | | Skipping the static gates | `report-tools check` runs before any pixel review; its defects are cheaper than a visual pass | | Delivering with a pending manifest row | `outcome verify` must pass; every promised format ends `delivered`, `blocked_capability`, `skipped`, or `failed` with a reason | | Repairing past the tracker's stop decision | `repair decide` owns the budget; `deliver` ships with the residual list, `block` stops delivery | | Guessing a design-spec value the extractor marked `TODO: ask` | Fill it from the interview answers or the reference's defaults, never by guessing | | Referencing an asset that is not on disk | Verify the asset manifest before rendering; re-render whatever is missing | | A figure stretched, cropped, or styled off the report's design language | `design-spec.md` binds every asset: fixed containers, contain-fit with aspect preserved, spec fonts and palette in charts and Mermaid | | Chasing an interesting find with no ENTER trigger | Excursions need a named trigger; everything else stays a queued lead | | An excursion that never came back, or drifted into a new mission | EXIT rules are unconditional; depth 3 means promote it to an axis or record it as a gap | | An excursion whose result was never folded back | Every EXIT writes what it changed in the top-level answer, `none` included, and mirrors into the loop ledger | | Ending with file paths while `show_html_page` is available | Show the report inline first (the gated `report.html` or its inline edition), then the paths and the summary | | A visual reproduction checked only against itself | Reference compare: real source frames next to renders at the same moments, a critique per pair, fixes, and the pairs in the report | | Delivering without the closing briefing | Paste the block `outcome briefing` prints; never compute or recall its numbers by hand |