---

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.

<when_to_use>

• 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

</when_to_use>

<source_authority>

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• Outdated material — age unknown or clearly stale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

</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 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

</cross_referencing>

<comparison_analysis>

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

</comparison_analysis>

<citation_requirements>

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 }

</citation_requirements>

<research_workflow>

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

</research_workflow>

<synthesis_techniques>

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

</synthesis_techniques>

<confidence_calibration>

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

</confidence_calibration>

<output_format>

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

• Source 1 — tier {N}
• Source 2 — tier {N}

△ Caveats

{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }

</output_format>

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:

• research-and-report — full research workflow (loads this skill)
• codebase-analysis — uses for technical research synthesis
• pattern-analysis — identifying patterns in findings