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 Confidence Types Use For
1: Primary 90-100% Official docs, original research, direct observation Factual claims, guarantees
2: Secondary 70-90% Expert analysis, established publications, official guides Best practices, patterns
3: Community 50-70% Q&A sites, blogs, wikis, anecdotal evidence Workarounds, pitfalls
4: Unverified 0-50% Unattributed, outdated, content farms, unchecked AI Initial leads only
See source-tiers.md for detailed assessment criteria.
</source_authority>
<cross_referencing>
Two-Source Minimum
Never rely on single source for critical claims:
-
Find claim in initial source
-
Seek confirmation in independent source
-
If sources conflict → investigate further
-
If sources agree → moderate confidence
-
If 3+ sources agree → high confidence
Conflict Resolution
When sources disagree:
-
Check dates — newer information often supersedes
-
Compare authority — higher tier beats lower tier
-
Verify context — might both be right in different scenarios
-
Test empirically — verify through direct observation if possible
-
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:
Method When to Use
Feature Matrix Side-by-side capability comparison
Trade-off Analysis Strengths/weaknesses/use cases per option
Weighted Matrix Quantitative scoring with importance weights
See 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
-
Main answer — clear, actionable
-
Supporting evidence — cite 2-3 strongest sources
-
Caveats — limitations, context-specific notes
-
Alternatives — other valid approaches
</synthesis_techniques>
<confidence_calibration>
Level Indicator Criteria
High 90-100% 3+ tier-1 sources agree, empirically verified
Moderate 60-89% 2 tier-2 sources agree, some empirical support
Low Below 60% Single source or tier-3 only, unverified
Flag remaining uncertainties even at high confidence.
</confidence_calibration>
<output_format>
Standard report structure:
Summary
{ 1-2 sentence answer }
Key Findings
- {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
Comparison (if applicable)
{ matrix or trade-off analysis }
Confidence Assessment
Overall: {LEVEL} {PERCENTAGE}%
Sources
- Source — tier {N}
Caveats
{ uncertainties, gaps, assumptions }
See output-template.md for full template with guidelines.
</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
NEVER:
-
Cite single source for critical claims
-
Present tier-4 sources as authoritative
-
Skip confidence calibration
-
Hide conflicting sources
-
Omit caveats when uncertainty exists
-
source-tiers.md — detailed authority assessment
-
comparison-methods.md — comparison templates
-
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.