Purpose

Provides a repeatable procedure for decomposing a research question into narrow sub-questions, delegating each to a read-only sub-agent, validating the returned evidence, and synthesizing a consolidated answer — all without any sub-agent mutating repository state.

When to use

• A question requires evidence from 2+ distinct sources or domains.
• The lead agent's context window would overflow if it did all research inline.
• The user explicitly asks for delegated or parallel research.
• A planning phase needs facts gathered before decisions can be made.

Do NOT use when

• The answer is retrievable with a single grep, glob, or web-fetch call.
• The task requires writing code, creating files, or mutating repo state.
• Research scope is undefined — ask the user to clarify before delegating.
• A more specific skill (e.g.,

  sc2-domain-expert

  ) already covers the domain.

Operating procedure

1. Extract the root question. Copy the user's request verbatim into a

   root_question

   field. If it contains multiple questions, list each one.
2. Decompose into sub-questions. For each root question, write 1–5 sub-questions that are independently answerable. Record each in a numbered list with an explicit scope boundary (files, APIs, docs to search).
3. Define the evidence contract per sub-agent. For every sub-question, specify: (a) allowed tool calls (grep, glob, view, web_search, web_fetch), (b) maximum sources to consult (default 3), (c) required output shape (quote + citation + confidence tag: high / medium / low).
4. Launch sub-agents in parallel. Use the

   task

   tool with

   agent_type: explore

   for each sub-question. Include the evidence contract verbatim in the prompt.
5. Collect and validate returns. For each sub-agent response, check: (a) at least one direct quote or data point is present, (b) every claim has a file path, URL, or commit SHA citation, (c) confidence tag is included. Reject any response missing these and re-prompt once.
6. Cross-reference overlapping findings. If two sub-agents return conflicting data, list both claims side-by-side with citations and flag the conflict explicitly — do not silently pick one.
7. Synthesize the consolidated answer. Merge validated findings into a single structured response: Summary → Evidence table (claim | source | confidence) → Open questions.
8. Record the research trace. Append a

   ## Research Log

   section listing each sub-question, the sub-agent that handled it, and the verdict.

Decision rules

• Never allow a sub-agent to run

  bash

  ,

  edit

  , or

  create

  — research is read-only.
• If a sub-agent returns only a status phrase ("I found it", "looks good") with no evidence, mark the sub-question as FAILED and re-delegate once.
• If re-delegation also fails, escalate the sub-question to the lead agent with an explicit "evidence gap" note.
• Cap total sub-agents at 6 per research round to avoid context explosion.
• Prefer primary sources (code, docs, API responses) over secondary commentary (blog posts, Stack Overflow) unless no primary source exists.

Output requirements

1. Research Brief — a markdown section with: Summary, Evidence Table (claim | source | confidence), Conflicts, Open Questions.
2. Sub-agent Trace — a collapsed details block listing each sub-question, its delegate, and pass/fail status.
3. Confidence Rating — an overall HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW tag on the brief.

References

• references/delegate-contracts.md

  — template for sub-agent contracts.

• references/failure-escalation.md

  — when and how to escalate gaps.

Related skills

• swarm-patterns

  — when research scales to many parallel agents.

• verification-before-advance

  — gating next steps on research quality.

• workflow-state-memory

  — persisting research results across sessions.

• session-resume-rehydration

  — resuming interrupted research.

Failure handling

• Sub-agent timeout: If a sub-agent does not return within 120 seconds, cancel it and note the sub-question as TIMED_OUT in the trace.
• All sub-agents fail: Attempt the research inline with the lead agent. If the lead agent also cannot answer, return a frank "unable to determine" with the list of attempted sources.
• Conflicting evidence with no resolution: Present both sides to the user with citations and ask for a tiebreaker rather than guessing.
• Scope creep: If a sub-agent's findings suggest the root question needs reframing, pause synthesis and propose a revised decomposition to the user.