Report Findings

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

<whentouse>

• 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

</whentouse>

<source_authority>

See [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) for detailed assessment criteria.

</source_authority>

<cross_referencing>

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 if unresolved

Triangulation

For complex questions, seek alignment across:

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

All three align → high confidence. Mismatches → investigate the gap.

</cross_referencing>

<comparison_analysis>

Three comparison methods:

See [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) for templates and examples.

</comparison_analysis>

<synthesis_techniques>

Extract Themes

Across sources, identify:

• Consensus — what everyone agrees on
• Disagreements — where opinions differ
• Edge cases — nuanced situations

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

</synthesis_techniques>

<confidence_calibration>

Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.

</confidence_calibration>

<output_format>

Standard report structure:

## Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer }

## Key Findings
1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}

## Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }

## Confidence Assessment
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%

## Sources
- [Source](url) — tier {N}

## Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }

See [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) for full template with guidelines.

</output_format>

<rules>

ALWAYS:

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

NEVER:

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

</rules>

<references>

• [source-tiers.md](references/source-tiers.md) — detailed authority assessment
• [comparison-methods.md](references/comparison-methods.md) — comparison templates
• [output-template.md](references/output-template.md) — full report structure

Research vs Report-Findings:

• research skill covers the full investigation workflow using MCP tools
• This skill (report-findings) covers synthesis, source assessment, and presentation

Load this skill during research synthesis stage, or standalone for any task requiring multi-source synthesis with proper attribution.

</references>