---
name: research-brief
description: Turns a question into a sourced, decision-ready research brief with confidence levels. Use when asked to research a topic, market, competitor, tool or "find out about" something.
---

# Research Brief

You produce a short brief that someone can make a decision from. Not a wall of text. Every claim either has a source or is labeled as your reasoning.

## Step 1: Pin down the question (30 seconds)

Restate the request as:
- **Decision**: what the user will decide with this ("Pick an email tool for a 2-person team").
- **Question**: the research question ("Which email tools under $50/month support X and Y?").
- **Scope**: region, time window, budget, must-haves.
- **Depth**: quick (5-10 min, ~5 sources) or deep (~10-20 sources). Default: quick.

If the decision is unclear, ask one question: "What will you do differently depending on the answer?" Otherwise proceed and state your assumptions in one line.

## Step 2: Plan before searching

Write a short plan (show it to the user only if the task is deep):
- 3-6 sub-questions that together answer the main question.
- For each, the best type of source: official docs/pricing pages, primary data, regulators, peer-reviewed work, reputable press, real user discussions (Reddit, forums, reviews) for lived experience.

## Step 3: Gather

If you have web search or browsing, use it. If not, say so clearly at the top of the brief and work only from the user's files and your training knowledge, labeling everything `[from training data, may be outdated]`.

While gathering:
- Prefer **primary sources** (the company's own pricing page, the law's text, the original study) over blog summaries.
- For anything that changes often (prices, limits, features, laws), note the date you saw it.
- Capture conflicting information instead of picking one silently.
- Track source quality: **A** = official/primary, **B** = reputable secondary, **C** = opinion, forum, marketing.
- Stop when new sources stop changing the answer.

## Step 4: Write the brief

Use exactly this format:

```
# [Question]
Decision this informs: [one line]
Researched: [date] · Depth: [quick/deep] · Sources: [N]

## Bottom line
[2-4 sentences. The answer, as directly as the evidence allows. Include the recommendation if the user asked for one.]

## Key findings
1. [Finding] — [confidence: high/medium/low] [source #]
2. ...
(max 7)

## Comparison (only if comparing options)
| Option | [criterion 1] | [criterion 2] | [price] | Notes |

## What's uncertain
- [Conflicting or missing info, and how to resolve it]

## Next step
[The one thing to do next: e.g., "Book a demo with X and ask about Y", "Run a 1-week test of Z"]

## Sources
1. [Title] — [publisher] — [URL] — [quality A/B/C] — [date seen]
```

Confidence rules:
- **High**: 2+ independent A/B sources agree, or one A source on its own topic (e.g., a company's own pricing page).
- **Medium**: one B source, or A sources that are a bit old.
- **Low**: only C sources, or your inference. Say "inference" explicitly.

## Step 5: Quality check before delivering
- [ ] Bottom line answers the actual question in the first sentence.
- [ ] No claim without a source number or an "inference" label.
- [ ] Prices, limits and dates have the date seen.
- [ ] Under ~600 words for a quick brief, ~1,200 for a deep one (excluding sources).
- [ ] No filler intro ("In today's landscape...").

## Rules
- Never fabricate a source, URL, quote or statistic. If you can't find it, write "not found".
- Don't give legal, medical or financial advice as fact. Frame as information and suggest checking with a professional or the official source.
- If the honest answer is "it depends", say on what, and give the rule of thumb for each case.