{ "id": "research-brief", "slug": "research-brief", "name": "Research Brief", "tagline": "Any question, answered with the evidence and every source.", "description": "A deep dive on any topic that puts the answer first, then the findings, the open debates, and a numbered source list.", "category": "Research", "platforms": [ "Grok Bot", "Muse", "Dots" ], "schedule": "On demand", "outputType": "brief", "previewImage": "previews/research-brief.png", "installSteps": { "grokBot": { "label": "Grok Bot", "status": "verified", "steps": [ "Copy skills/research-brief/SKILL.md (the whole file, including the --- header).", "Open a one-to-one chat with your Grok Bot and paste the prompt below, with the file where it says.", "Try it once now: \"Run Research Brief.\"" ], "prompt": "Save the following as a skill called \"Research Brief\". Before the first run, ask me the setup questions in the skill and remember my answers.\n\n", "note": "Skills and routines are saved by asking the Bot; no settings to dig through.", "promptFull": "Save the following as a skill called \"Research Brief\". Before the first run, ask me the setup questions in the skill and remember my answers.\n\n---\nname: research-brief\ndescription: Use when the user asks for a research brief, deep dive, explainer, literature scan, or \"find out everything about\" a topic, company, technology, or question. Produces a sourced brief with a bottom-line answer, key findings, open debates, and a numbered source list, with every claim tied to a source opened this run.\nmetadata:\n id: research-brief\n version: \"1.0.0\"\n author: BotPlaza\n---\n\n# Research Brief\n\n> Any question, answered with the evidence and every source.\n\n## What it does\n\nTurn a question into a brief the user can act on: the answer up top, the evidence below, and every claim traceable to a source.\n\n## When to use\n\n- \"Research X\", \"give me a deep dive on X\", \"what's the state of X\", \"should we use X or Y\", \"brief me on X before Thursday\".\n- Not for live prices, sports scores, or a single fact lookup. Answer those directly.\n\n## Requires\n\nWeb search and web access to open sources. No accounts needed.\n\n## Schedule\n\nOn demand. Run it when the user asks; it can also be put on a schedule (for example a weekly brief on a tracked topic).\n\n## Inputs\n\n| Setting | Default | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| `question` | required | Restate it as one clear question before starting. If it's vague, pick the most useful reading, say which, and proceed. |\n| `depth` | standard | `quick` (5\u20138 sources, about 1 page), `standard` (10\u201315 sources, 2\u20133 pages), `deep` (20+ sources, with a methods note). |\n| `audience` | the user | E.g. \"my CFO\", \"a non-technical friend\". Sets vocabulary and what to explain. |\n| `recency` | any | Or \"last 12 months\", \"since 2024\". |\n| `source_types` | balanced | Toggle: news, academic papers, official/government data, company filings, expert blogs, forums. |\n| `format` | brief | `brief` (prose + bullets), `table` (comparison grid), `memo` (one page, decision-oriented). |\n\n## Steps\n\n1. **Frame.** Write the question in one sentence and list 3 to 5 sub-questions that together answer it.\n2. **Search wide.** Run several searches per sub-question with different phrasings. Include primary sources (papers, filings, official data, documentation), not just articles about them.\n3. **Read, don't skim.** Open every source you will cite. Note the publish date, author or organization, and the specific claim you're using.\n4. **Weigh sources.** Prefer primary over secondary, recent over old (unless history matters), and independent over interested parties. Flag when a source has a stake in the answer.\n5. **Find the disagreement.** Look for where credible sources conflict. Report the conflict honestly; don't average it away.\n6. **Answer.** Write a 2\u20133 sentence bottom line that directly answers the question, with your confidence (high / medium / low) and why.\n7. **Write the brief** in the format below. Tie each claim to a numbered source like [3].\n8. **Check.** Every number and quote matches its source. Every source is listed with a working URL and date. Nothing comes from memory alone; if you know something but can't source it, say \"unsourced\" or cut it.\n\n## Output format\n\n```markdown\n# {Question}\n*Research brief \u00b7 {date} \u00b7 {N} sources \u00b7 Confidence: {high/medium/low}*\n\n## Bottom line\n{2\u20133 sentences answering the question.}\n\n## Key findings\n1. **{Finding}.** {Evidence, 1\u20133 sentences.} [1][4]\n\n## Where sources disagree\n- {Point of conflict, who says what.} [2] vs [6]\n\n## What we still don't know\n- {Gap}\n\n## If you're deciding\n- {Practical implication or next step}\n\n## Sources\n1. {Author/Org}, \"{Title}\", {Outlet}, {date}. {URL}\n```\n\n## Edge cases\n\n- **Little reliable information:** say so in the bottom line. A short honest brief beats a long speculative one.\n- **Fast-moving topic:** add \"As of {date, time, tz}\" and note what may change.\n- **Medical, legal, or financial questions:** summarize the evidence, note it isn't professional advice, and point to the right kind of professional.\n- **Paywalled papers:** use the abstract and say only the abstract was read.\n- **The user's premise is wrong:** say so plainly in the bottom line, with the source.\n\n## Boundaries\n\n- Read-only. This skill never sends, posts, or buys anything.\n- Never cite a source you didn't open this run, and never present model memory as a finding." }, "muse": { "label": "Muse", "status": "partially-verified", "steps": [ "Copy skills/research-brief/SKILL.md.", "Open Muse and paste the prompt below with the file where it says.", "Try it: \"Run Research Brief.\" Muse has no skill install for outside skills, so it follows the pasted instructions.", "Muse Code (developer CLI): unzip downloads/research-brief.zip, run `muse skills validate ./research-brief` then `muse skills install ./research-brief --scope user`. Optional: add the BotPlaza connector (https://botplaza.vercel.app/api/mcp) under mcpServers in ~/.config/muse/settings.json." ], "sourceUrl": "https://www.meta.com/help/superintelligence/1484325780075655/", "note": "Recurring tasks and Muse Code skill install are documented by Meta. Installing outside skills in the Muse app is not.", "prompt": "Here are instructions for a task called \"Research Brief\". Follow them whenever I say \"Run Research Brief\". Ask me the setup questions first and remember my answers.\n\n\n\nIf you can save this as a skill, please do.", "promptFull": "Here are instructions for a task called \"Research Brief\". Follow them whenever I say \"Run Research Brief\". Ask me the setup questions first and remember my answers.\n\n---\nname: research-brief\ndescription: Use when the user asks for a research brief, deep dive, explainer, literature scan, or \"find out everything about\" a topic, company, technology, or question. Produces a sourced brief with a bottom-line answer, key findings, open debates, and a numbered source list, with every claim tied to a source opened this run.\nmetadata:\n id: research-brief\n version: \"1.0.0\"\n author: BotPlaza\n---\n\n# Research Brief\n\n> Any question, answered with the evidence and every source.\n\n## What it does\n\nTurn a question into a brief the user can act on: the answer up top, the evidence below, and every claim traceable to a source.\n\n## When to use\n\n- \"Research X\", \"give me a deep dive on X\", \"what's the state of X\", \"should we use X or Y\", \"brief me on X before Thursday\".\n- Not for live prices, sports scores, or a single fact lookup. Answer those directly.\n\n## Requires\n\nWeb search and web access to open sources. No accounts needed.\n\n## Schedule\n\nOn demand. Run it when the user asks; it can also be put on a schedule (for example a weekly brief on a tracked topic).\n\n## Inputs\n\n| Setting | Default | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| `question` | required | Restate it as one clear question before starting. If it's vague, pick the most useful reading, say which, and proceed. |\n| `depth` | standard | `quick` (5\u20138 sources, about 1 page), `standard` (10\u201315 sources, 2\u20133 pages), `deep` (20+ sources, with a methods note). |\n| `audience` | the user | E.g. \"my CFO\", \"a non-technical friend\". Sets vocabulary and what to explain. |\n| `recency` | any | Or \"last 12 months\", \"since 2024\". |\n| `source_types` | balanced | Toggle: news, academic papers, official/government data, company filings, expert blogs, forums. |\n| `format` | brief | `brief` (prose + bullets), `table` (comparison grid), `memo` (one page, decision-oriented). |\n\n## Steps\n\n1. **Frame.** Write the question in one sentence and list 3 to 5 sub-questions that together answer it.\n2. **Search wide.** Run several searches per sub-question with different phrasings. Include primary sources (papers, filings, official data, documentation), not just articles about them.\n3. **Read, don't skim.** Open every source you will cite. Note the publish date, author or organization, and the specific claim you're using.\n4. **Weigh sources.** Prefer primary over secondary, recent over old (unless history matters), and independent over interested parties. Flag when a source has a stake in the answer.\n5. **Find the disagreement.** Look for where credible sources conflict. Report the conflict honestly; don't average it away.\n6. **Answer.** Write a 2\u20133 sentence bottom line that directly answers the question, with your confidence (high / medium / low) and why.\n7. **Write the brief** in the format below. Tie each claim to a numbered source like [3].\n8. **Check.** Every number and quote matches its source. Every source is listed with a working URL and date. Nothing comes from memory alone; if you know something but can't source it, say \"unsourced\" or cut it.\n\n## Output format\n\n```markdown\n# {Question}\n*Research brief \u00b7 {date} \u00b7 {N} sources \u00b7 Confidence: {high/medium/low}*\n\n## Bottom line\n{2\u20133 sentences answering the question.}\n\n## Key findings\n1. **{Finding}.** {Evidence, 1\u20133 sentences.} [1][4]\n\n## Where sources disagree\n- {Point of conflict, who says what.} [2] vs [6]\n\n## What we still don't know\n- {Gap}\n\n## If you're deciding\n- {Practical implication or next step}\n\n## Sources\n1. {Author/Org}, \"{Title}\", {Outlet}, {date}. {URL}\n```\n\n## Edge cases\n\n- **Little reliable information:** say so in the bottom line. A short honest brief beats a long speculative one.\n- **Fast-moving topic:** add \"As of {date, time, tz}\" and note what may change.\n- **Medical, legal, or financial questions:** summarize the evidence, note it isn't professional advice, and point to the right kind of professional.\n- **Paywalled papers:** use the abstract and say only the abstract was read.\n- **The user's premise is wrong:** say so plainly in the bottom line, with the source.\n\n## Boundaries\n\n- Read-only. This skill never sends, posts, or buys anything.\n- Never cite a source you didn't open this run, and never present model memory as a finding.\n\nIf you can save this as a skill, please do." }, "dots": { "label": "Dots", "status": "partially-verified", "steps": [ "Copy skills/research-brief/SKILL.md.", "Paste the prompt below into your dot's conversation in ChatGPT, with the file where it says.", "Optional: in ChatGPT, Plugins > + > Add custom MCP server with https://botplaza.vercel.app/api/mcp (no authentication). Dots can use installed plugins, but OpenAI hasn't said whether that includes custom ones.", "Business, Enterprise, Healthcare and Edu workspaces can also upload downloads/research-brief.zip under Plugins > Skills > Create > Upload from your computer." ], "sourceUrl": "https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots", "note": "Dots are available on ChatGPT Pro, Business Premium and Enterprise, and are still rolling out. Pasting instructions in and scheduled check-ins are documented.", "prompt": "Here are instructions for a task called \"Research Brief\". Take this on as an ongoing responsibility and follow them whenever I say \"Run Research Brief\". Ask me the setup questions first and remember my answers.\n\n", "promptFull": "Here are instructions for a task called \"Research Brief\". Take this on as an ongoing responsibility and follow them whenever I say \"Run Research Brief\". Ask me the setup questions first and remember my answers.\n\n---\nname: research-brief\ndescription: Use when the user asks for a research brief, deep dive, explainer, literature scan, or \"find out everything about\" a topic, company, technology, or question. Produces a sourced brief with a bottom-line answer, key findings, open debates, and a numbered source list, with every claim tied to a source opened this run.\nmetadata:\n id: research-brief\n version: \"1.0.0\"\n author: BotPlaza\n---\n\n# Research Brief\n\n> Any question, answered with the evidence and every source.\n\n## What it does\n\nTurn a question into a brief the user can act on: the answer up top, the evidence below, and every claim traceable to a source.\n\n## When to use\n\n- \"Research X\", \"give me a deep dive on X\", \"what's the state of X\", \"should we use X or Y\", \"brief me on X before Thursday\".\n- Not for live prices, sports scores, or a single fact lookup. Answer those directly.\n\n## Requires\n\nWeb search and web access to open sources. No accounts needed.\n\n## Schedule\n\nOn demand. Run it when the user asks; it can also be put on a schedule (for example a weekly brief on a tracked topic).\n\n## Inputs\n\n| Setting | Default | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| `question` | required | Restate it as one clear question before starting. If it's vague, pick the most useful reading, say which, and proceed. |\n| `depth` | standard | `quick` (5\u20138 sources, about 1 page), `standard` (10\u201315 sources, 2\u20133 pages), `deep` (20+ sources, with a methods note). |\n| `audience` | the user | E.g. \"my CFO\", \"a non-technical friend\". Sets vocabulary and what to explain. |\n| `recency` | any | Or \"last 12 months\", \"since 2024\". |\n| `source_types` | balanced | Toggle: news, academic papers, official/government data, company filings, expert blogs, forums. |\n| `format` | brief | `brief` (prose + bullets), `table` (comparison grid), `memo` (one page, decision-oriented). |\n\n## Steps\n\n1. **Frame.** Write the question in one sentence and list 3 to 5 sub-questions that together answer it.\n2. **Search wide.** Run several searches per sub-question with different phrasings. Include primary sources (papers, filings, official data, documentation), not just articles about them.\n3. **Read, don't skim.** Open every source you will cite. Note the publish date, author or organization, and the specific claim you're using.\n4. **Weigh sources.** Prefer primary over secondary, recent over old (unless history matters), and independent over interested parties. Flag when a source has a stake in the answer.\n5. **Find the disagreement.** Look for where credible sources conflict. Report the conflict honestly; don't average it away.\n6. **Answer.** Write a 2\u20133 sentence bottom line that directly answers the question, with your confidence (high / medium / low) and why.\n7. **Write the brief** in the format below. Tie each claim to a numbered source like [3].\n8. **Check.** Every number and quote matches its source. Every source is listed with a working URL and date. Nothing comes from memory alone; if you know something but can't source it, say \"unsourced\" or cut it.\n\n## Output format\n\n```markdown\n# {Question}\n*Research brief \u00b7 {date} \u00b7 {N} sources \u00b7 Confidence: {high/medium/low}*\n\n## Bottom line\n{2\u20133 sentences answering the question.}\n\n## Key findings\n1. **{Finding}.** {Evidence, 1\u20133 sentences.} [1][4]\n\n## Where sources disagree\n- {Point of conflict, who says what.} [2] vs [6]\n\n## What we still don't know\n- {Gap}\n\n## If you're deciding\n- {Practical implication or next step}\n\n## Sources\n1. {Author/Org}, \"{Title}\", {Outlet}, {date}. {URL}\n```\n\n## Edge cases\n\n- **Little reliable information:** say so in the bottom line. A short honest brief beats a long speculative one.\n- **Fast-moving topic:** add \"As of {date, time, tz}\" and note what may change.\n- **Medical, legal, or financial questions:** summarize the evidence, note it isn't professional advice, and point to the right kind of professional.\n- **Paywalled papers:** use the abstract and say only the abstract was read.\n- **The user's premise is wrong:** say so plainly in the bottom line, with the source.\n\n## Boundaries\n\n- Read-only. This skill never sends, posts, or buys anything.\n- Never cite a source you didn't open this run, and never present model memory as a finding." } }, "author": "BotPlaza", "tags": [ "research", "deep dive", "sources", "explainer", "decision support" ], "featured": false, "longDescription": "Ask a real question, such as whether to switch tools, what the evidence says about a treatment, or how a market is shifting, and get back a brief you could forward to your boss. Research Brief searches widely, reads the sources it cites, weighs who has a stake in the answer, and tells you plainly where experts disagree. Every claim carries a numbered citation, and it says how confident it is and why.", "customization": [ { "key": "depth", "label": "Depth", "type": "select", "options": [ "Quick (5\u20138 sources)", "Standard (10\u201315 sources)", "Deep (20+ sources)" ], "default": "Standard (10\u201315 sources)" }, { "key": "sourceTypes", "label": "Source types", "type": "multi-toggle", "options": [ "News", "Academic papers", "Official data", "Company filings", "Expert blogs", "Forums" ], "default": [ "News", "Academic papers", "Official data", "Company filings", "Expert blogs" ] }, { "key": "format", "label": "Format", "type": "select", "options": [ "Brief", "Comparison table", "One-page memo" ], "default": "Brief" }, { "key": "audience", "label": "Written for", "type": "text", "default": "Me" }, { "key": "recency", "label": "Recency", "type": "select", "options": [ "Any time", "Last 12 months", "Last 30 days" ], "default": "Any time" } ], "whatYouGet": [ "A 2\u20133 sentence bottom line with a confidence rating", "Key findings, each tied to numbered sources", "Where credible sources disagree", "Open questions and practical next steps", "A full source list with dates and links" ], "dataSources": [ { "name": "Web search", "required": true } ], "setupTime": "1 minute", "sampleOutput": "samples/research-brief.md", "skillFile": "skills/research-brief/SKILL.md", "version": "1.0.0", "previewAlt": "Example research brief on whether a 12-person team should move from spreadsheets to a CRM: a bottom-line answer, three cited findings and where sources disagree.", "writesOrSends": "Read-only.", "safety": { "dataAccess": [ "Public web (search and page reads)" ], "writesOrSends": "Read-only.", "estCost": "On demand, so it costs only when you run it. A deep brief reads many pages and is the heaviest single run in the catalog.", "costLevel": "varies", "warnings": [ "Check the cited sources before relying on a claim for anything important.", "Don't paste confidential documents into the question unless your assistant's data policy allows it." ] }, "urls": { "page": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/skills/research-brief/", "markdown": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/skills/research-brief.md", "skillMd": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/skills/research-brief/SKILL.md", "json": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/skills/research-brief.json", "zip": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/downloads/research-brief.zip", "mcp": "https://botplaza.vercel.app/api/mcp" } }