research

Sub-agent contract

/contract

Dispatch two sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Prefer subagent_type: "research-agent"; fall back to subagent_type: "Explore" with thoroughness "very thorough" if the research-agent is not available. One researches the web for external context relevant to the current task. The other inspects the local working directory for domain-relevant artifacts. Return a concise merged research brief highlighting relevant findings, conflicts, risks, and implications for the task.

TUI label convention. Set id_prefix on each Agent dispatch to a short, descriptive task label so the live progress view shows the agent's job rather than a generic identifier:

• Web agent: id_prefix: "web research"
• Local inspection agent: id_prefix: "local inspection"

Web research agent — always the same: search for external context, prior art, patterns, APIs, and comparable approaches relevant to the task. Domain-agnostic.

Local inspection agent — adapt to the domain:

Domain	What to inspect
software	Code, config files, package manifests, CI configs, test suites, git history, README/docs, existing patterns and conventions
research	Papers (PDF/LaTeX), notes, data files, citation databases (.bib), lab notebooks, analysis scripts, prior drafts
design	Design files (Figma exports, SVGs, mockups), brand guidelines, component libraries, user research docs, style guides
business	Financial models, strategy docs, market research, pitch decks, competitive analyses, KPI dashboards, stakeholder maps
(other)	Scan the working directory for any files relevant to the stated domain — documents, data, config, scripts — and describe what you find

When domain is unspecified, infer it: git repo → software; PDFs/LaTeX/.bib → research; design assets → design; spreadsheets/decks → business. If ambiguous, inspect broadly and note what you found.

Coverage reporting

Both agents must end their response with a coverage assessment:

• Coverage confidence: low / medium / high — how thoroughly could this domain be searched?
• Known gaps: what couldn't be accessed? (proprietary databases, paywalled papers, unpublished work, practitioner-only knowledge)
• Tacit knowledge risk: low / medium / high — is this a domain where critical knowledge is unwritten or not documented online?

When merging results, surface coverage gaps prominently. If both agents report low coverage, flag: "Low epistemic coverage — findings may be incomplete. Consider consulting domain practitioners or providing access to private sources."