| name | multi-source-investigation |
| description | Conducts systematic investigations across diverse information sources with cross-validation and credibility assessment. Use when researching complex topics, fact-checking claims, understanding different perspectives, or building comprehensive understanding. Triggers on phrases like "investigate", "verify", "fact check", "cross-reference", "multiple sources", "different perspectives on". |
| tools | WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Grep, Glob |
Multi-Source Investigation
This skill guides systematic investigation across diverse sources with rigorous validation.
Phase 1: Investigation Scope
Central Question
- What exactly are you investigating?
- What would a complete answer look like?
- What level of certainty is needed?
Stakeholder Mapping
Identify who has knowledge or interests:
- Domain experts
- Practitioners
- Affected parties
- Critics/skeptics
- Regulators/authorities
Known Perspectives
- What positions already exist on this topic?
- Who holds each position?
- What evidence supports each?
CHECKPOINT: Confirm investigation scope with user.
Phase 2: Source Diversification
Source Type Matrix
| Type | Strengths | Limitations | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic | Peer-reviewed, rigorous | May lag current events | Journals, conferences |
| Official | Authoritative | May have political bias | Government, institutions |
| Industry | Practical, current | Commercial interests | White papers, reports |
| Journalism | Accessible, current | Variable quality | News outlets |
| Expert | Deep knowledge | Individual perspective | Interviews, blogs |
| Primary | Direct evidence | Needs interpretation | Data, documents |
Minimum Source Diversity
Aim for at least:
- 2+ academic sources
- 2+ credible news/journalism sources
- 1+ official/institutional source
- 1+ expert commentary
- Primary data when available
Phase 3: Systematic Retrieval
Search Execution
For each source type:
Academic:
site:arxiv.org OR site:scholar.google.com [topic]
News/Journalism:
site:reuters.com OR site:apnews.com [topic]
Official:
site:gov OR site:edu [topic]
Information Extraction
For each source, document:
- Source metadata (author, date, outlet)
- Key claims made
- Evidence provided
- Methodology (if applicable)
- Potential biases
- Links to other sources
Phase 4: Credibility Assessment
CRAAP Test
| Criterion | Questions |
|---|---|
| Currency | When published? Updated? Still relevant? |
| Relevance | Relates to question? Appropriate depth? |
| Authority | Author credentials? Publisher reputation? |
| Accuracy | Supported by evidence? Verifiable? Reviewed? |
| Purpose | Inform, persuade, sell? Biases disclosed? |
Credibility Scoring
Rate each source 1-5:
- 5: Highly credible (peer-reviewed, authoritative, transparent)
- 4: Credible (reputable source, clear methodology)
- 3: Moderately credible (some concerns but usable)
- 2: Questionable (significant issues, use cautiously)
- 1: Not credible (exclude from analysis)
Threshold: Only include sources scoring ≥ 3
Phase 5: Cross-Validation
Claim Validation Matrix
| Claim | Source A | Source B | Source C | Consensus | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Claim 1] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Strong | High |
| [Claim 2] | ✓ | ~ | ✗ | Mixed | Low |
| [Claim 3] | ✓ | ✓ | ? | Partial | Medium |
Legend: ✓=supports, ✗=contradicts, ~=nuanced, ?=no data
Handling Disagreements
When sources conflict:
- Assess relative credibility
- Check for newer evidence
- Identify reasons for disagreement
- Note the uncertainty
CHECKPOINT: Present conflicting findings for user input.
Phase 6: Perspective Synthesis
Perspective Map
Position A
|
Position D ----[Topic]---- Position B
|
Position C
For each position:
- Who holds it?
- What evidence supports it?
- What are its limitations?
- How does it relate to others?
Certainty Classification
- Well-established: High consensus, strong evidence
- Likely: Preponderance of evidence
- Uncertain: Conflicting evidence
- Unknown: Insufficient data
- Contested: Active debate, valid arguments on multiple sides
Phase 7: Investigation Report
Output Structure
# Investigation: [Topic]
## Question
[Central question investigated]
## Methodology
- Sources searched: [List]
- Time period: [Range]
- Inclusion criteria: [Criteria]
## Source Summary
| Source | Type | Credibility | Key Claims |
|--------|------|-------------|------------|
| [Source] | [Type] | [Score] | [Claims] |
## Key Findings
### Finding 1: [Statement]
- Evidence: [Summary]
- Sources: [Citations]
- Certainty: [Level]
### Finding 2: [Statement]
[Same structure]
## Contested Points
- [Point]: [Summary of disagreement]
## Perspective Map
[Visual or narrative of different positions]
## Limitations
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]
## Conclusions
[What can be confidently concluded]
[What remains uncertain]
## References
[Formatted citations]