Decompose complex research questions into sub-questions, research each with live web search, synthesize findings, verify conclusions, and output a structured research report.
Deep Research is a Claude Code / Reasonix skill that transforms any complex research question into a structured, verifiable research report. It follows a rigorous 5-step methodology: decompose → research → synthesize → verify → output.
Unlike a simple "ask AI and get an answer" workflow, Deep Research:
- Decomposes the question into 3–7 independent sub-questions
- Researches each sub-question with real-time web search (up to 3 in parallel)
- Synthesizes findings into core discoveries and a preliminary conclusion
- Verifies the conclusion by deliberately searching for counter-evidence
- Iterates up to 2 rounds if verification fails
- Outputs a structured markdown report with full source citations
User Question
↓
Step 1: Decompose → 3~7 sub-questions
↓
Step 2: Research each sub-question (parallel, max 3 per batch)
↓
Step 3: Synthesize → preliminary conclusion
↓
Step 4: Verify → design falsifiable checkpoints → search for counter-evidence
↓
Step 5: Pass? → Generate report file
Fail? → Back to Step 1 (max 2 iterations)
Break the question into 3–7 orthogonal sub-questions following this progression: definition/concept → current state/facts → causes/mechanisms → impact/trends → solutions/comparisons.
For each sub-question, run web searches and optionally web_fetch key pages. Extract facts, data, and viewpoints. Every sub-question gets a structured answer with cited sources.
Search degradation strategy: If 2 consecutive searches return only irrelevant homepage results, fall back to direct web_fetch on authoritative domains (official docs > reputable blogs > community wikis).
Cross-reference all sub-question answers. Identify 3–5 core findings. Form a preliminary conclusion. Flag uncertainties and information gaps explicitly.
Design 3–5 falsifiable verification checkpoints — claims that can be proven wrong. Search for counter-evidence, opposing views, or more authoritative data. Each checkpoint gets ✅ Pass or ❌ Fail with reasoning.
| Scenario | Action |
|---|---|
| Verification passes | Generate structured report file (deep-research-<topic-slug>.md) |
| Verification fails, iterations < 2 | Return to Step 1 with adjusted decomposition |
| Max iterations reached, still failing | Generate report with |
Generated reports follow a standardized 6-section format with full source traceability:
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| 1. Sub-Question Breakdown | Decomposition table |
| 2. Per-Question Research | Search results, sources, and structured answers for each sub-question |
| 3. Preliminary Synthesis | 3–5 core findings, preliminary conclusion, information gaps |
| 4. Verification | Falsifiable checkpoints, counter-evidence search, per-checkpoint pass/fail |
| 5. Final Conclusion | Revised answer after verification (or annotated with unresolved issues) |
| 6. Source Index | All cited sources with URLs |
deep-research/
├── SKILL.md # Skill definition
├── report-template.md # Report output template
├── README.md # This file
└── README_CN.md # Chinese readme
-
Copy the
deep-research/directory into your Reasonix (or Claude Code) skills folder:- Project-scoped:
<project>/.reasonix/skills/deep-research/ - Global:
~/.reasonix/skills/deep-research/
- Project-scoped:
-
The skill will appear in your Skills index on the next session launch (or
/new).
Invoke via the skill system:
/deep-research What are the latest advancements in solid-state batteries?
Or programmatically:
/run-skill deep-research "Compare Rust vs Zig for systems programming in 2025"
The skill spawns as a subagent, runs the full research pipeline independently, and returns the path to the generated report file.
| Requirement | Detail |
|---|---|
| Platform | Claude Code, Reasonix (or compatible agent runtime) |
| Tools | web_search, web_fetch, write_file, read_file |
| Model | Recommended: deepseek-v4-pro; minimum: deepseek-v4-flash |
| Principle | How It's Applied |
|---|---|
| Decompose before research | Prevents shallow answers to complex questions |
| Every claim needs a source | All factual assertions must cite URLs |
| Verify by seeking disconfirmation | Actively search for counter-evidence, not just confirmation |
| Iterate, don't fabricate | Up to 2 rounds; failures are annotated, never invented |
| Structured output | Consistent report format enables cross-topic comparison |