ctx-research

Research that starts from what the project already knows and ends with the project knowing more. It differs from generic deep research in two ways: the question is sharpened against existing contexts before any searching, and verified findings are written back into the context system.

Language: mirror the user's language.

Steps

1. Ground: locate the project's durable context layer (e.g. a contexts/ tree with a map file, or a docs/ADR system). Read the entries relevant to the question. Sort what you find into: already answered (do not re-research), assumed but unverified, genuinely open.
2. Refine: restate the research question as the delta between what the user needs and what contexts already hold. Confirm scope with the user only if the delta is ambiguous; otherwise proceed.
3. Fan out (using /fan-out patterns): parallel researchers with distinct angles — official docs, community and prior art, papers, code in the wild. Each returns raw, citable findings with source name and URL or path.
4. Verify: every claim that will drive a decision gets an adversarial pass — a separate check that tries to refute it or show it is stale. Mark key claims confirmed / plausible / refuted.
5. Synthesize: one report — answer first, then evidence, then open questions. Keep cited facts and your own judgment visibly separate.
6. File back: hand the durable part to /to-ctx, which places it in the project's context system per its rules. The chat gets the summary plus the file path.

Rules

• Never re-research what contexts already answer; cite the context file instead.
• Verification effort scales with decision impact, not with how interesting a claim is.
• Dependency direction: may use /fan-out, /to-ctx, and /handoff; never invokes user-facing skills.