workflow-research

name: workflow-research description: "Research and plan a knowledge work task thoroughly before execution. Use when starting any significant piece of work - drafting important communications, making strategic decisions, preparing for meetings, or tackling analysis projects. Triggers on requests like 'help me prepare for', 'I need to draft', 'plan out', or any high-stakes knowledge work."

Research: Knowledge Work Research Workflow

You are orchestrating the Research phase of the Compound Knowledge Work loop. Your job is to thoroughly research a task and transform it into an actionable plan that makes execution straightforward.

80% of compound knowledge work is in research and review. Do not rush this phase.

Process

Phase 0: Discover Available Tools

Before starting research, check what MCP tools and CLIs are available in the environment (e.g., email, calendar, meeting notes, CRM, company intel). Note which are available and pass this to all agents so they can use them proactively.

Phase 1: Understand the Task

1. Read the task description carefully. If the user provided a document, file, or URL, read it thoroughly.

2. Classify the work type:

   • Communication (email, memo, announcement, presentation)
   • Decision (strategic choice, vendor selection, resource allocation)
   • Analysis (market research, financial analysis, competitive review)
   • Meeting (preparation, facilitation, follow-up)
   • Coaching (leadership challenge, personal effectiveness)
   • Operations (process design, project planning, documentation)

3. Determine stakes and complexity:

   • Low stakes: Internal notes, routine updates -> lighter planning
   • Medium stakes: Team communications, standard decisions -> moderate planning
   • High stakes: Board communications, strategic decisions, sensitive topics -> full planning

Phase 1.5: Ask Clarifying Questions

Before launching research, identify gaps and ask the user clarifying questions. This prevents wasted research on the wrong problem.

When to ask questions:

• Task description is vague or has multiple interpretations
• Success criteria are unclear
• Stakeholders or constraints aren't specified
• High-stakes work where misunderstanding would be costly
• User's stated request might differ from their actual need

Question patterns (from superpowers):

• Ask one at a time, wait for answer before next question
• Include your hypothesis: "What does success look like? My hypothesis: [X]"
• Focus on research-direction questions: What would change your approach?
• Catch red flags early: Political sensitivity, irreversibility, high stakes

Hard Gate for high-stakes work - You MUST get answers to:

1. Who is the audience/stakeholder?
2. What does success look like?
3. What constraints exist (political, budget, timing)?
4. What have you tried before that didn't work?

Example questions:

• "What does success look like for this communication? My hypothesis: Board approval vs. team buy-in require different approaches"
• "Who is the decision-maker here? This affects stakeholder mapping"
• "What's the timeline? This determines research depth"
• "Are there political sensitivities I should know about?"
• "What have you already tried? What didn't work?"

When to skip this phase:

• Low-stakes routine work (internal notes, simple updates)
• User provided comprehensive brief with explicit success criteria
• Task is crystal clear and unambiguous

Phase 2: Search Past Learnings

Before any new research, check what we already know. This is where compounding pays off.

In Claude Code (file-based retrieval):

1. Check the learnings index at .context/learnings/INDEX.md - scan for matching category, type, and tags.
2. Search by category: Grep .context/learnings/[category]/ for the relevant work type (e.g., communication/, decision/, meeting/).
3. Search by type: Look specifically for pattern and template insights that match the current task.
4. Search by keywords: Grep across all learnings for topic-specific terms (stakeholder names, project names, framework names).
5. Search for preferences: Grep for type: preference insights in the relevant category - these capture style, tone, and detail preferences from previous work.

If past learnings exist, incorporate them into the plan:

• Reuse patterns (type: pattern) that worked before
• Avoid failures (type: failure) that were documented
• Apply templates (type: template) if a relevant one exists
• Honor preferences (type: preference) from previous work in this category

Surface what you found: "Based on previous [category] work, we learned [X] and have a template for [Y]."

Phase 3: Parallel Research

Launch research agents in parallel based on the work type. Use the Task tool with appropriate subagents. Pass the stakes level to each agent so they can calibrate depth.

Scale agents to stakes:

Agent roster by work type (for medium/high stakes):

For high-stakes work, always add:

• External research via web search for best practices, frameworks, and examples

Phase 4: Research Decision

After parallel research returns, assess whether you need additional external research.

Always research externally when:

• The topic involves legal, compliance, or regulatory considerations
• The decision is irreversible or very high stakes
• The domain is unfamiliar
• Best practices or industry standards exist that should be consulted

Phase 5: Synthesize the Plan

Use the plan-synthesizer agent mindset to create the final plan.

Plan Output Format:

# Plan: [Task Name]

## Task Summary
[2-3 sentences: What we're doing, why it matters, what success looks like]

## Context Brief
[Key context gathered - what we know, what matters, what's sensitive]

## Prior Learnings Applied
[What we found from past compound phases, organized by type:
- **Patterns**: [approaches that worked before]
- **Failures**: [mistakes to avoid]
- **Templates**: [reusable structures available]
- **Preferences**: [style/tone/detail preferences for this category]
If none found, state "No prior learnings found for this work type."]

## Stakeholder Considerations
[Who's affected, their interests, anticipated reactions]

## Constraints
[Time, political, resource, or other constraints identified]

## Relevant Precedents
[What's been done before in similar situations, what worked/didn't]

## Approach
[Step-by-step plan for execution]

### Step 1: [Action]
- **What**: [Specific action]
- **Why**: [Rationale]
- **Agent**: [Which work-phase agent to use]
- **Inputs needed**: [What information is required]

### Step 2: [Action]
[Same structure]

## Review Plan
[Which review agents should evaluate the output, and why]

| Reviewer | Why Needed |
|----------|------------|
| [Agent] | [What they'll catch] |

## Success Criteria
- [ ] [Measurable outcome 1]
- [ ] [Measurable outcome 2]
- [ ] [Measurable outcome 3]

## Risks & Mitigations
| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|------------|------------|
| [Risk] | [H/M/L] | [How to address] |

## Timeline
[Suggested sequencing and any time constraints]

Phase 6: User Approval

Present the plan to the user. Ask if they want to:

1. Approve and proceed to the Work phase
2. Modify specific sections
3. Add context you may have missed
4. Adjust scope (more or less thorough)

Important Principles

• Plans are living documents. They will be updated during execution.
• Front-load the thinking. Every minute spent planning saves ten in execution.
• Be explicit about assumptions. If you're guessing, say so.
• Match rigor to stakes. A routine email doesn't need a 20-step plan.
• Include review in the plan. Every plan should specify which reviewers will check the output.

Next Step

When the plan is approved, move to execution: /coworkpowers:workflow-work

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Planning so long that urgency passes
• Over-planning low-stakes work
• Skipping stakeholder analysis on communications
• Assuming context instead of gathering it
• Creating plans that are too abstract to execute