Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

report-findings

@outfitter-dev/agents
0
0

Structure and present research findings with source authority assessment, cross-referencing, and confidence calibration. Use when synthesizing multi-source research, presenting findings, comparing options, or when report, findings, synthesis, sources, or --report are mentioned. Micro-skill loaded by research-and-report, codebase-analysis, and other investigation skills.

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name report-findings
version 1.0.0
description Structure and present research findings with source authority assessment, cross-referencing, and confidence calibration. Use when synthesizing multi-source research, presenting findings, comparing options, or when report, findings, synthesis, sources, or --report are mentioned. Micro-skill loaded by research-and-report, codebase-analysis, and other investigation skills.

Report Findings

Multi-source gathering → authority assessment → cross-reference → synthesize → present with confidence.

  • Synthesizing research from multiple sources
  • Presenting findings with proper attribution
  • Comparing options with structured analysis
  • Assessing source credibility
  • Documenting research conclusions

NOT for: single-source summaries, opinion without evidence, rushing to conclusions

Tier 1: Primary Sources (90–100% confidence)

  • Official documentation — authoritative source material
  • Original research — peer-reviewed, verified data
  • Direct observation — first-hand evidence
  • Canonical references — definitive specifications

Use for: factual claims, behavior guarantees, canonical information

Tier 2: Authoritative Secondary (70–90% confidence)

  • Expert analysis — recognized authorities in field
  • Established publications — reputable sources with editorial standards
  • Official guides — sanctioned but not canonical
  • Conference materials — from recognized experts

Use for: best practices, patterns, trade-off analysis

Tier 3: Community Sources (50–70% confidence)

  • Community discussions — Q&A sites, forums
  • Individual analysis — blogs, personal research
  • Crowd-sourced content — wikis, collaborative docs
  • Anecdotal evidence — reported experiences

Use for: practical workarounds, common pitfalls, usage examples

Tier 4: Unverified (0–50% confidence)

  • Unattributed content — no clear source
  • Outdated material — age unknown or clearly stale
  • Questionable provenance — content farms, SEO-driven
  • Unchecked AI content — generated without verification

Use for: initial leads only, must verify against higher tiers

Two-Source Minimum

Never rely on single source for critical claims:

  1. Find claim in initial source
  2. Seek confirmation in independent source
  3. If sources conflict → investigate further
  4. If sources agree → moderate confidence
  5. If 3+ sources agree → high confidence

Conflict Resolution

When sources disagree:

  1. Check dates — newer information often supersedes
  2. Compare authority — higher tier beats lower tier
  3. Verify context — might both be right in different scenarios
  4. Test empirically — verify through direct observation if possible
  5. Document uncertainty — flag with △ if unresolved

Triangulation

For complex questions:

  • Official sources — what should happen
  • Direct evidence — what actually happens
  • Community reports — what people experience

All three align → high confidence Mismatches → investigate the gap

Feature Comparison Matrix

Feature Option A Option B Option C
Criterion 1 High Medium Low
Criterion 2 Medium High High
Criterion 3 Large Small Medium

Trade-off Analysis

For each option, capture:

  • Strengths — what it does well
  • Weaknesses — what it struggles with
  • Use cases — when to choose this
  • Deal-breakers — when to avoid this

Weighted Decision Matrix

  1. List criteria (importance factors)
  2. Assign weights (1–5 importance)
  3. Score each option (1–5 on each criterion)
  4. Calculate: Σ(weight × score)
  5. Highest total → recommended option

When to Cite

Always cite for:

  • Specific claims — quantitative statements, statistics
  • Best practices — recommended approaches
  • Breaking changes — behavioral shifts
  • Warnings — risks, vulnerabilities, concerns

Citation Format

Inline references:

  • [Source Name](URL) — linked citation
  • [Source Name] — reference to listed source
  • Direct attribution in prose

Source Attribution

In findings:

## Research Findings

Based on:
- [Primary Source](url)
- [Secondary Source](url)
- [Community Discussion](url)

△ Note: { caveats about sources }

Breadth-First Discovery

  1. Formulate question — clear, specific
  2. Identify keywords — search terms
  3. Survey landscape — skim 5–10 sources
  4. Cluster findings — group similar perspectives
  5. Identify gaps — what's missing?

Depth-First Investigation

  1. Select promising source — highest authority
  2. Read thoroughly — understand fully
  3. Follow references — cited sources
  4. Validate claims — cross-check
  5. Synthesize — extract key insights

Iterative Refinement

  1. Initial answer — based on first pass
  2. Identify uncertainty — what's unclear?
  3. Targeted research — fill specific gaps
  4. Update answer — incorporate findings
  5. Repeat until confidence threshold met

Common Themes

Across sources, extract:

  • Consensus — what everyone agrees on
  • Disagreements — where opinions differ
  • Edge cases — nuanced situations
  • Evolution — how thinking has changed

Pattern Recognition

Look for:

  • Repeated recommendations — multiple sources suggest same approach
  • Consistent warnings — multiple sources flag same pitfall
  • Recurring examples — same patterns shown
  • Aligned trade-offs — similar benefit/cost analysis

Structured Summary

Present findings:

  1. Main answer — clear, actionable
  2. Supporting evidence — cite 2–3 strongest sources
  3. Caveats — limitations, context-specific notes
  4. Alternatives — other valid approaches
  5. Further reading — for deeper dive

Research quality affects confidence:

High confidence (▓▓▓▓▓):

  • 3+ tier-1 sources agree
  • Empirically verified
  • Current/maintained sources

Moderate confidence (▓▓▓░░):

  • 2 tier-2 sources agree
  • Some empirical support
  • Recent but not authoritative

Low confidence (▓░░░░):

  • Single source or tier-3 only
  • Unverified claims
  • Outdated information

△ Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence

Findings Report

Summary

{ 1-2 sentence answer to research question }

Key Findings

  1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
  2. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}

Comparison (if applicable)

{ matrix or trade-off analysis }

Confidence Assessment

Overall: {BAR} {PERCENTAGE}%

High confidence areas:

  • {AREA} — {REASON}

Lower confidence areas:

  • {AREA} — {REASON}

Sources

△ Caveats

{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }

ALWAYS:

  • Assess source authority before citing
  • Cross-reference critical claims (2+ sources)
  • Include confidence levels with findings
  • Cite sources with proper attribution
  • Flag uncertainties with △

NEVER:

  • Cite single source for critical claims
  • Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
  • Skip confidence calibration
  • Hide conflicting sources
  • Omit caveats section when uncertainty exists

Related skills: