@michael-joseph-miller/ant-bot 0.1.0

package/skills/deep-research/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+---
+name: deep-research
+compatibility: Requires web search and fetch access. Parallel subagents and the Counter-Review Team are optional; without them the skill runs its documented degraded and manual-review paths.
+description: |
+  Generate format-controlled research reports with evidence tracking, citations, source governance, and multi-pass synthesis.
+  This skill should be used when users request a research report, literature review, market or industry analysis,
+  competitive landscape, policy or technical brief. Triggers: "帮我调研一下", "深度研究", "综述报告", "深入分析",
+  "research this topic", "write a report on", "survey the literature on", "competitive analysis of",
+  "技术选型分析", "竞品研究", "政策分析", "行业报告".
+  V6 adds: source-type governance, AS_OF freshness checks, mandatory counter-review, and citation registry. V6.1 adds: source accessibility (circular verification forbidden, exclusive advantage encouraged).
+---
+
+# Deep Research
+
+Create high-fidelity research reports with strict format control, evidence mapping, source governance, and multi-pass synthesis.
+
+## Architecture: Lead Agent + Subagents
+
+```
+Lead Agent (coordinator — minimizes raw search context)
+  |
+  P0: Environment + source policy setup
+  |
+  P1: Research Task Board (roles, queries, parallel groups)
+  |
+  Dispatch ──→ Subagent A ──→ writes task-a.md ──┐
+           ──→ Subagent B ──→ writes task-b.md ──┤ (parallel)
+           ──→ Subagent C ──→ writes task-c.md ──┘
+  |                                               |
+  |     research-notes/  <────────────────────────┘
+  |
+  P2: Build citation registry with source_type + as_of + authority
+  P3: Evidence-mapped outline with counter-claim flags
+  P4: Draft from notes (never from raw search results)
+  P5: Counter-review (claims, confidence, alternatives)
+  P6: Verify (every [n] in registry, traceability check)
+  P7: Polish → final report with confidence markers
+```
+
+**Context efficiency:** Subagents' raw search results stay in their context and are discarded. Lead agent sees only distilled notes (~60-70% context reduction).
+
+## Mode Selection
+
+Determine the research mode before starting:
+
+| Dimension | Options |
+|-----------|---------|
+| **Topic Mode** | Enterprise Research (company/corporation) OR General Research (industry/policy/tech) |
+| **Depth Mode** | Standard (5-6 tasks, 3000-8000 words) OR Lightweight (3-4 tasks, 2000-4000 words) |
+
+- **Enterprise Research Mode**: Six-dimension data collection with structured analysis frameworks (SWOT, risk matrix, competitive barrier quantification). Read [references/enterprise_mode.md](references/enterprise_mode.md) for the E1-E7 pipeline — it overlays the P0-P7 steps below rather than replacing them.
+- **General Research Mode**: Standard P0-P7 research pipeline with source governance
+- **Depth Selection**: Lightweight for single entity/concept < 30 words; Standard for multi-entity comparison or "深入"/"comprehensive" requests
+
+## Source Governance (V6)
+
+### Source Accessibility Classification
+
+**CRITICAL RULE**: Every source must be classified by accessibility:
+
+| Accessibility | Definition | Examples | Usage Rule |
+|--------------|------------|----------|------------|
+| `public` | Available to any external researcher without authentication | Public websites, news articles, WHOIS (without privacy), academic papers | ✅ Always allowed |
+| `semi-public` | Requires registration or limited access | LinkedIn profiles, Crunchbase basic, industry reports (free tier) | ✅ Allowed with disclosure |
+| `exclusive-user-provided` | User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, proprietary databases | Crunchbase Pro, PitchBook, private data feeds, internal databases | ✅ **ALLOWED** for third-party research |
+| `private-user-owned` | User's own accounts when researching themselves | User's registrar for user's own company, user's bank for user's own finances | ❌ **FORBIDDEN** - circular verification |
+
+**⚠️ CIRCULAR VERIFICATION BAN**: You must NOT:
+- Use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
+- Research user's own company by accessing user's private accounts
+- Present user's private knowledge as "research findings"
+
+**✅ EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION ADVANTAGE**: You SHOULD:
+- Use user's Crunchbase Pro to research competitors
+- Use user's proprietary databases for market research
+- Use user's private APIs for investment analysis
+- Leverage any exclusive source user provides for third-party research
+
+### Source Type Labels
+
+Every source MUST also be tagged with:
+
+| Label | Definition | Examples |
+|-------|------------|----------|
+| `official` | Primary source, official documentation | Company SEC filings, government reports, official blog |
+| `academic` | Peer-reviewed research | Journal articles, conference papers, dissertations |
+| `secondary-industry` | Professional analysis | Industry reports, analyst coverage, trade publications |
+| `journalism` | News reporting | Reputable media outlets, investigative journalism |
+| `community` | User-generated content | Forums, reviews, social media, Q&A sites |
+| `other` | Uncategorized or mixed | Aggregators, unverified sources |
+
+**Quality Gates:**
+- Standard mode: ≥30% official sources in final approved set
+- Lightweight mode: ≥20% official sources
+- Maximum single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
+- Minimum unique domains: 5 (Standard), 3 (Lightweight)
+
+## AS_OF Date Policy
+
+Set `AS_OF` date explicitly at P0. For all time-sensitive claims:
+- Include source publication date with every citation
+- Downgrade confidence if source is older than relevant horizon
+- Flag stale sources in registry (studies >3 years, news >6 months for fast-moving topics)
+
+## P0: Environment & Policy Setup
+
+Check capabilities before starting:
+
+| Check | Requirement | Impact if Missing |
+|-------|-------------|-------------------|
+| web_search available | Required | Stop - cannot proceed |
+| web_fetch available | Required for DEEP tasks | SCAN-only mode |
+| Subagent dispatch | Preferred | Degrade to sequential |
+| Filesystem writable | Required | In-memory notes only |
+
+Set policy variables:
+- `AS_OF`: Today's date (YYYY-MM-DD) - mandatory for timed topics
+- `MODE`: Standard (default) or Lightweight
+- `SOURCE_TYPE_POLICY`: Enforce official/academic/secondary/journalism/community/other labels
+- `COUNTER_REVIEW_PLAN`: What opposing interpretation to test
+
+Report: `[P0 complete] Subagent: {yes/no}. Mode: {standard/lightweight}. AS_OF: {YYYY-MM-DD}.`
+
+## P1: Research Task Board
+
+Decompose the research question into 4-6 investigation tasks (Standard) or 3-4 tasks (Lightweight).
+
+Each task assignment includes:
+- **Expert Role**: Specialist persona (e.g., "Policy Historian", "Ecosystem Mapper")
+- **Objective**: One-sentence investigation goal
+- **Queries**: 2-3 pre-planned search queries
+- **Depth**: DEEP (fetch 2-3 full articles) or SCAN (snippets sufficient)
+- **Output**: Path to research notes file
+- **Parallel Group**: Group A (independent) or Group B (depends on Group A)
+
+### Task Decomposition Rules
+
+1. Each task covers one coherent sub-topic a specialist would own
+2. Group A tasks must be independent and source-diverse
+3. Max 3 tasks per parallel group (concurrency limit)
+4. Every task must flag time-sensitive claims and expected citation aging risk
+
+Report: `[P1 complete] {N} tasks in {M} groups. Dispatching Group A.`
+
+---
+
+## P2: Dispatch + Investigate
+
+Subagents execute tasks using [references/subagent_prompt.md](references/subagent_prompt.md) and output to [references/research_notes_format.md](references/research_notes_format.md).
+
+### With Subagents (Claude Code / Cowork / DeerFlow)
+
+1. Dispatch Group A tasks in parallel (max 3 concurrent)
+2. Each subagent searches, fetches, and tags source types
+3. Every source line includes `Source-Type` and `As Of`
+4. Wait for Group A completion
+5. Dispatch Group B (can read Group A notes)
+
+### Subagent Output Requirements
+
+Each task-{id}.md must contain:
+- **Sources section**: URLs from actual search results with Source-Type, As Of, Authority (1-10)
+- **Findings section**: Max 10 one-sentence facts with source numbers
+- **Deep Read Notes** (DEEP tasks): 2-3 sources read in full with key data/insights
+- **Gaps section**: What was searched but NOT found, alternative interpretations
+
+### Without Subagents (Degraded Mode)
+
+Lead agent executes tasks sequentially, acting as each specialist. Raw search results are discarded after writing notes.
+
+Status per task: `[P2 task-{id} complete] {N} sources, {M} findings.`
+Status all: `[P2 complete] {N} tasks done, {M} total sources. Building registry.`
+
+---
+
+## P3: Citation Registry + Source Governance
+
+Lead agent reads all task notes and builds unified registry.
+
+### Registry Process
+
+1. Read every task file's `## Sources` section
+2. Merge all sources, deduplicate by URL
+3. Assign sequential [n] numbers by first appearance
+4. Tag: source_type, as_of date, authority score (1-10), task id
+5. **Apply quality gates:**
+   - Standard: ≥12 approved sources, ≥5 unique domains, ≥30% official
+   - Lightweight: ≥6 approved sources, ≥3 unique domains, ≥20% official
+   - Max single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
+6. **Drop sources** below threshold and list them explicitly
+
+### Registry Output Format
+
+```
+CITATION REGISTRY
+
+Approved:
+[1] Author/Org — Title | URL | Source-Type: official | Accessibility: public | Date: 2026-03-01 | Auth: 8 | task-a
+[2] ...
+
+Dropped:
+x Source | URL | Source-Type: community | Accessibility: privileged | Auth: 3 | Reason: PRIVILEGED SOURCE - NOT ALLOWED
+
+Stats: {approved}/{total}, {N} domains, official_share {xx}%
+Privileged sources rejected: {N}
+```
+
+**Critical rule:** These [n] are FINAL. P5 may only cite from Approved list. Dropped sources never reappear.
+
+**Circular verification handling**: When researching the user's own company/assets, if you discover data in user's private accounts (e.g., user's domain registrar showing they own domains), you MUST:
+1. Reject it from the registry (user already knows this)
+2. Note it as "CIRCULAR - USER ALREADY KNOWS" in Dropped
+3. Search for equivalent PUBLIC sources (e.g., public WHOIS, news articles)
+4. Report from external investigator perspective only
+
+**Exclusive source handling**: When user EXPLICITLY PROVIDES their paid subscriptions or private APIs for third-party research (e.g., "Use my Crunchbase Pro to research competitors"), you SHOULD:
+1. Accept it as "exclusive-user-provided" accessibility
+2. Use it as competitive advantage
+3. Cite it properly in registry
+4. If no public equivalent exists, mark as [unverified] or omit the claim
+
+Report: `[P3 complete] {approved}/{total} sources. {N} domains. Official share: {xx}%. Privileged rejected: {N}.`
+
+### Handling Information Black Box
+
+When researching entities with no public footprint (like the "字节跳动子公司" example):
+
+**What an external researcher would find:**
+- WHOIS: Privacy protected → No owner info
+- Web search: No news, no press releases
+- Social media: No company pages
+- Business registries: No public API or requires local access
+- Result: **Complete information black box**
+
+**Correct response:**
+```
+Findings: NO PUBLIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE
+
+Sources checked:
+- WHOIS (public): Privacy protected [failed]
+- Company registry (public): Access denied/No API [failed]
+- News media: No coverage [failed]
+- Corporate website: Placeholder only [minimal]
+
+Verdict: UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPANY EXISTENCE from external perspective
+Sources found: 0 (or minimal, e.g., only WHOIS showing domain exists)
+Confidence: N/A - Insufficient evidence
+```
+
+**DO NOT:**
+- ❌ Use user's own credentials to "fill in the gaps"
+- ❌ Assume the company exists based on domain registration alone
+- ❌ Fill missing data with speculation
+- ❌ Claim to have "verified" information you accessed through privileged means
+
+**DO:**
+- ✅ Clearly state what an external researcher can/cannot verify
+- ✅ Document all failed search attempts
+- ✅ Mark claims as [unverified] or omit entirely
+- ✅ Downgrade mode to Lightweight or stop if insufficient public sources
+- ✅ Recommend direct contact for due diligence
+
+---
+
+## P4: Evidence-Mapped Outline
+
+Lead agent reads notes + registry to build outline.
+
+1. Identify cross-task patterns
+2. Design sections topic-first, not task-order-first
+3. Map each section to specific findings with source numbers
+4. Flag sections needing counter-review
+5. Mark recency-sensitive claims with AS_OF checks
+
+Outline format:
+```
+## N. {Section Title}
+Sources: [1][3][7] from tasks a, b
+Claims: {claim from task-a finding 3}, {claim from task-b finding 1}
+Counter-claim candidates: {alternative explanations}
+Recency checks: {source dates + AS_OF}
+Gaps: {limited official evidence}
+```
+
+---
+
+## P5: Draft from Notes
+
+Write section by section using [references/report_template_v6.md](references/report_template_v6.md).
+
+**Rules:**
+- Every factual claim needs citation [n]
+- Numbers/percentages must have source
+- Add **confidence marker** per section: High/Medium/Low with rationale
+- Add **counter-claim sentence** when evidence conflicts
+- No new sources may be introduced
+- Use [unverified] for unsupported statements
+
+**Anti-hallucination:**
+- Lead agent never invents URLs — only from subagent notes
+- Lead agent never fabricates data — mark [unverified] if number not in notes
+
+Status: `[P5 in progress] {N}/{M} sections, ~{words} words.`
+
+---
+
+## P6: Counter-Review (Mandatory)
+
+For each major conclusion, perform opposite-view checks:
+
+1. **Could the conclusion be wrong?**
+2. **Which high-impact claims depend on a single source?**
+3. **Which claims lack official/academic support?**
+4. **Are stale sources used for time-sensitive claims?**
+5. **Find ≥3 issues** (re-examine if 0 found)
+
+### Using Counter-Review Team (Recommended)
+
+For comprehensive parallel review, use the Counter-Review Team:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Prepare inputs
+counter-review-inputs/
+  ├── draft_report.md
+  ├── citation_registry.md
+  ├── task-notes/
+  └── p0_config.md
+
+# 2. Dispatch to 4 specialist agents in parallel
+SendMessage to: claim-validator
+SendMessage to: source-diversity-checker
+SendMessage to: recency-validator
+SendMessage to: contradiction-finder
+
+# 3. Wait for all specialists to complete
+
+# 4. Send to coordinator for synthesis
+SendMessage to: counter-review-coordinator
+  inputs: [4 specialist reports]
+
+# 5. Receive final P6 Counter-Review Report
+```
+
+See [references/counter_review_team_guide.md](references/counter_review_team_guide.md) for detailed usage.
+
+### Manual Counter-Review (Fallback)
+
+If Counter-Review Team is unavailable, perform manual checks:
+- Verify every high-confidence claim has ≥2 sources
+- Check official/academic backing for key claims
+- Verify AS_OF dates on time-sensitive claims
+- Document opposing interpretations
+
+### Output
+
+Include in final report:
+```
+## 核心争议 / Key Controversies
+- **争议 1:** [主张 A 与反向证据 B 对比] [n][m]
+- **争议 2:** ...
+```
+
+Report: `[P6 complete] {N} issues found: {critical} critical, {high} high, {medium} medium.`
+
+---
+
+## P7: Verify
+
+Cross-check before finalization:
+
+1. **Registry cross-check:** List every [n] in report vs approved registry
+2. **Spot-check 5+ claims:** Trace to task notes
+3. **Remove/fix non-traceable claims**
+4. **Validate no dropped source resurrected**
+5. **Check source concentration** for key claims
+
+Report: `[P7 complete] {N} spot-checks, {M} violations fixed.`
+
+---
+
+## Output Requirements
+
+- Match the requested language and tone
+- Preserve technical terms in English
+- Respect the report spec and formatting rules
+- Include a references section or bibliography
+
+## Reference Files
+
+### Core V6 Pipeline References
+
+| File | When to Load |
+| --- | --- |
+| [source_accessibility_policy.md](references/source_accessibility_policy.md) | **P0 (CRITICAL)**: Source classification rules - read first |
+| [subagent_prompt.md](references/subagent_prompt.md) | P2: Task dispatch to subagents |
+| [research_notes_format.md](references/research_notes_format.md) | P2: Subagent output format |
+| [report_template_v6.md](references/report_template_v6.md) | P5: Draft with confidence markers and counter-review |
+| [quality_gates.md](references/quality_gates.md) | All phases: Quality thresholds and anti-hallucination checks |
+
+### General Research References
+
+| File | When to Load |
+| --- | --- |
+| [research_report_template.md](references/research_report_template.md) | Build outline and draft structure |
+| [formatting_rules.md](references/formatting_rules.md) | Enforce section formatting and citation rules |
+| [source_quality_rubric.md](references/source_quality_rubric.md) | Score and triage sources |
+| [research_plan_checklist.md](references/research_plan_checklist.md) | Build research plan and query set |
+| [completeness_review_checklist.md](references/completeness_review_checklist.md) | Review for coverage, citations, and compliance |
+
+### Enterprise Research References (load when in Enterprise Research Mode)
+
+| File | When to Load |
+| --- | --- |
+| [enterprise_mode.md](references/enterprise_mode.md) | **Start here** — the E1-E7 pipeline that overlays P0-P7 |
+| [enterprise_research_methodology.md](references/enterprise_research_methodology.md) | Six-dimension data collection workflow, source priority, cross-validation rules |
+| [enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md](references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md) | SWOT template, competitive barrier quantification, risk matrix, comprehensive scoring |
+| [enterprise_quality_checklist.md](references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md) | L1/L2/L3 quality checks, per-dimension checklists, 7-chapter report template |
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- Single-pass drafting without parallel complete passes
+- Splitting passes by section instead of full report drafts
+- Ignoring the format contract or user template
+- Claims without citations or evidence table mapping
+- Mixing conflicting dates without calling out discrepancies
+- Copying external AI output without verification
+- Deleting intermediate drafts or raw research outputs
+- **Lead agent reading raw search results** — only read subagent notes
+- **Inventing URLs** — only use URLs from actual search results
+- **Resurrecting dropped sources** — dropped in P3 never reappear
+- **Missing AS_OF for time-sensitive claims** — always include source date
+- **Skipping counter-review** — mandatory P6 must find ≥3 issues
+- **CIRCULAR VERIFICATION** — never use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
+- **IGNORING EXCLUSIVE SOURCES** — when user provides Crunchbase Pro etc. for competitor research, USE IT
+
+## Next Step: Verify and Deliver
+
+After completing research, suggest verification and output:
+
+```
+Research report complete: [N] sources cited, [M] claims made.
+
+Options:
+A) Fact-check — re-verify every high-confidence claim against its cited source (Recommended)
+B) Summarize — condense the findings into a short brief or slide outline
+C) Deliver — write the report to the workspace in the format the user asked for
+D) No thanks — the report is ready as-is
+```
+
+Offer only what this environment can actually do; drop any option whose tooling is unavailable
+rather than naming a command that does not exist here.

package/skills/deep-research/references/V6_1_improvements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Deep Research Skill V6.1 Improvements
+
+**Date**: 2026-04-03  
+**Version**: 2.3.0 → 2.4.0  
+**Based on**: User feedback and "字节跳动" case study
+
+---
+
+## Summary of Changes
+
+### 1. Source Accessibility Policy - Critical Correction
+
+**Problem Identified**:  
+Previously, we incorrectly banned all "privileged" sources. This was wrong because it prevented users from leveraging their competitive information advantages.
+
+**The Real Issue**:  
+The problem is not using user's private information—it's **circular verification**: using user's data to "discover" what they already know about themselves.
+
+**Example of the Error**:
+```
+User: "Research my company 字节跳动子公司"
+❌ WRONG: Access user's Spaceship → "You own 25 domains"
+   → This is circular: user already knows they own these domains
+
+✅ RIGHT: Check public WHOIS → "Privacy protected, ownership not visible"
+   → This is external research perspective
+```
+
+**Correct Classification**:
+
+| Accessibility | For Self-Research | For Third-Party Research |
+|--------------|-------------------|-------------------------|
+| `public` | ✅ Use | ✅ Use |
+| `semi-public` | ✅ Use | ✅ Use |
+| `exclusive-user-provided` | ⚠️ Careful* | ✅ **ENCOURAGED** |
+| `private-user-owned` | ❌ **FORBIDDEN** | N/A |
+
+\* When user provides exclusive sources for their own company, evaluate if it's circular
+
+### 2. Counter-Review Team V2
+
+**Created**: 5-agent parallel review team
+- 🔵 claim-validator: Claim validation
+- 🟢 source-diversity-checker: Source diversity analysis
+- 🟡 recency-validator: Recency/freshness checks
+- 🟣 contradiction-finder: Contradiction and bias detection
+- 🟠 counter-review-coordinator: Synthesis and reporting
+
+**Usage**:
+```bash
+# 1. Dispatch to 4 specialists in parallel
+SendMessage to: claim-validator
+SendMessage to: source-diversity-checker
+SendMessage to: recency-validator
+SendMessage to: contradiction-finder
+
+# 2. Send to coordinator for synthesis
+SendMessage to: counter-review-coordinator
+```
+
+### 3. Methodology Clarifications
+
+#### When Researching User's Own Company
+- **Approach**: External investigator perspective
+- **Use**: Public sources only
+- **Do NOT use**: User's private accounts (creates circular verification)
+- **Report**: "From public perspective: X, Y, Z gaps"
+
+#### When User Provides Exclusive Sources for Third-Party Research
+- **Approach**: Leverage competitive advantage
+- **Use**: User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, proprietary databases
+- **Cite**: Mark as `exclusive-user-provided`
+- **Report**: "Per user's exclusive source [Crunchbase Pro], competitor X raised $Y"
+
+### 4. Registry Format Update
+
+**Added fields**:
+- `Accessibility`: public / semi-public / exclusive-user-provided / private-user-owned
+- `Circular rejection tracking`: Note when sources are rejected for circular verification
+
+**Updated anti-patterns**:
+- ❌ **CIRCULAR VERIFICATION**: Never use user's private data to "discover" what they already know
+- ✅ **USE EXCLUSIVE SOURCES**: When user provides Crunchbase Pro etc. for competitor research, USE IT
+
+### 5. Documentation Updates
+
+**New/Updated Files**:
+- `source_accessibility_policy.md`: Complete rewrite explaining circular vs. competitive advantage distinction
+- `counter_review_team_guide.md`: Usage guide for the 5-agent team
+- `SKILL.md`: Updated Source Governance section with correct classification
+- `marketplace.json`: Updated description
+
+---
+
+## Key Principles Summary
+
+1. **Circular Verification is Bad**: Don't use user's data to tell them what they already know
+2. **Exclusive Information Advantage is Good**: Use user's paid tools to research competitors
+3. **External Perspective for Self-Research**: When researching user's own company, act like an external investigator
+4. **Leverage Everything for Third-Party**: When researching others, use every advantage user provides
+
+---
+
+## Version History
+
+| Version | Changes |
+|---------|---------|
+| 2.0.0 | Initial Enterprise Research Mode |
+| 2.1.0 | V6 features: source governance, AS_OF, counter-review |
+| 2.2.0 | Counter-Review Team |
+| 2.3.0 | Source accessibility (initial, incorrect ban on privileged) |
+| **2.4.0** | **Corrected: circular vs. exclusive advantage distinction** |

package/skills/deep-research/references/completeness_review_checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Completeness Review Checklist
+
+Verify the draft meets all requirements before delivery.
+
+## Structure and Format
+- All required sections present and ordered
+- Headings match the format contract
+- Length targets met per section
+
+## Evidence and Citations
+- Every claim has a citation
+- Every numeric claim has at least one Tier A or B source
+- Conflicting sources are explicitly noted
+- Evidence table maps claims to sources
+
+## Content Quality
+- Findings answer the research questions
+- Recommendations are tied to evidence
+- Limitations and uncertainty are documented
+- Terminology is consistent
+
+## Final Checks
+- Dates and time ranges are consistent
+- No unsupported claims
+- No duplicate or conflicting statements