mirror of
https://github.com/SuperClaude-Org/SuperClaude_Framework.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:16:08 +00:00
495 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
495 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
|
|
# Deep Research Workflows
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 1: Planning-Only Strategy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Clear research question: "Latest TensorFlow 3.0 features"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "Latest TensorFlow 3.0 features" --strategy planning-only --depth standard
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Planning (Immediate):
|
||
|
|
- Decompose: Official docs, changelog, tutorials
|
||
|
|
- No user clarification needed
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Execution:
|
||
|
|
- Hop 1: Official TensorFlow documentation
|
||
|
|
- Hop 2: Recent tutorials and examples
|
||
|
|
- Confidence: 0.85 achieved
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Features list with examples
|
||
|
|
- Migration guide references
|
||
|
|
- Performance comparisons
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 2: Intent-to-Planning Strategy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Ambiguous request: "AI safety"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "AI safety" --strategy intent-planning --depth deep
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Intent Clarification:
|
||
|
|
Questions:
|
||
|
|
- "Are you interested in technical AI alignment, policy/governance, or current events?"
|
||
|
|
- "What's your background level (researcher, developer, general interest)?"
|
||
|
|
- "Any specific AI systems or risks of concern?"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. User Response:
|
||
|
|
- "Technical alignment for LLMs, researcher level"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Refined Planning:
|
||
|
|
- Focus on alignment techniques
|
||
|
|
- Academic sources priority
|
||
|
|
- Include recent papers
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Multi-Hop Execution:
|
||
|
|
- Hop 1: Recent alignment papers
|
||
|
|
- Hop 2: Key researchers and labs
|
||
|
|
- Hop 3: Emerging techniques
|
||
|
|
- Hop 4: Open problems
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Self-Reflection:
|
||
|
|
- Coverage: Complete ✓
|
||
|
|
- Depth: Adequate ✓
|
||
|
|
- Confidence: 0.82 ✓
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 3: Unified Intent-Planning with Replanning
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Complex research: "Build AI startup competitive analysis"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "Build AI startup competitive analysis" --strategy unified --hops 5
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Initial Plan Presentation:
|
||
|
|
Proposed Research Areas:
|
||
|
|
- Current AI startup landscape
|
||
|
|
- Funding and valuations
|
||
|
|
- Technology differentiators
|
||
|
|
- Market positioning
|
||
|
|
- Growth strategies
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
"Does this cover your needs? Any specific competitors or aspects to focus on?"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. User Adjustment:
|
||
|
|
"Focus on code generation tools, include pricing and technical capabilities"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Revised Multi-Hop Research:
|
||
|
|
- Hop 1: List of code generation startups
|
||
|
|
- Hop 2: Technical capabilities comparison
|
||
|
|
- Hop 3: Pricing and business models
|
||
|
|
- Hop 4: Customer reviews and adoption
|
||
|
|
- Hop 5: Investment and growth metrics
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Mid-Research Replanning:
|
||
|
|
- Low confidence on technical details (0.55)
|
||
|
|
- Switch to Playwright for interactive demos
|
||
|
|
- Add GitHub repository analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Quality Gate Check:
|
||
|
|
- Technical coverage: Improved to 0.78 ✓
|
||
|
|
- Pricing data: Complete 0.90 ✓
|
||
|
|
- Competitive matrix: Generated ✓
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 4: Case-Based Research with Learning
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Similar to previous research: "Rust async runtime comparison"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "Rust async runtime comparison" --memory enabled
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Case Retrieval:
|
||
|
|
Found Similar Case:
|
||
|
|
- "Go concurrency patterns" research
|
||
|
|
- Successful pattern: Technical benchmarks + code examples + community feedback
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Adapted Strategy:
|
||
|
|
- Use similar structure for Rust
|
||
|
|
- Focus on: Tokio, async-std, smol
|
||
|
|
- Include benchmarks and examples
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Execution with Known Patterns:
|
||
|
|
- Skip broad searches
|
||
|
|
- Direct to technical sources
|
||
|
|
- Use proven extraction methods
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. New Learning Captured:
|
||
|
|
- Rust community prefers different metrics than Go
|
||
|
|
- Crates.io provides useful statistics
|
||
|
|
- Discord communities have valuable discussions
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Memory Update:
|
||
|
|
- Store successful Rust research patterns
|
||
|
|
- Note language-specific source preferences
|
||
|
|
- Save for future Rust queries
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 5: Self-Reflective Refinement Loop
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Evolving research: "Quantum computing for optimization"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "Quantum computing for optimization" --confidence 0.8 --depth exhaustive
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Initial Research Phase:
|
||
|
|
- Academic papers collected
|
||
|
|
- Basic concepts understood
|
||
|
|
- Confidence: 0.65 (below threshold)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Self-Reflection Analysis:
|
||
|
|
Gaps Identified:
|
||
|
|
- Practical implementations missing
|
||
|
|
- No industry use cases
|
||
|
|
- Mathematical details unclear
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Replanning Decision:
|
||
|
|
- Add industry reports
|
||
|
|
- Include video tutorials for math
|
||
|
|
- Search for code implementations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Enhanced Research:
|
||
|
|
- Hop 1→2: Papers → Authors → Implementations
|
||
|
|
- Hop 3→4: Companies → Case studies
|
||
|
|
- Hop 5: Tutorial videos for complex math
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Quality Achievement:
|
||
|
|
- Confidence raised to 0.82 ✓
|
||
|
|
- Comprehensive coverage achieved
|
||
|
|
- Multiple perspectives included
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 6: Technical Documentation Research with Playwright
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Research the latest Next.js 14 App Router features
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "Next.js 14 App Router complete guide" --depth deep --scrape selective --screenshots
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Tavily Search:
|
||
|
|
- Find official docs, tutorials, blog posts
|
||
|
|
- Identify JavaScript-heavy documentation sites
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. URL Analysis:
|
||
|
|
- Next.js docs → JavaScript rendering required
|
||
|
|
- Blog posts → Static content, Tavily sufficient
|
||
|
|
- Video tutorials → Need transcript extraction
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Playwright Navigation:
|
||
|
|
- Navigate to official documentation
|
||
|
|
- Handle interactive code examples
|
||
|
|
- Capture screenshots of UI components
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Dynamic Extraction:
|
||
|
|
- Extract code samples
|
||
|
|
- Capture interactive demos
|
||
|
|
- Document routing patterns
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Combine official docs with community tutorials
|
||
|
|
- Create comprehensive guide with visuals
|
||
|
|
- Include code examples and best practices
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 7: Competitive Intelligence with Visual Documentation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Analyze competitor pricing and features
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "AI writing assistant tools pricing features 2024" --scrape all --screenshots --interactive
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Market Discovery:
|
||
|
|
- Tavily finds: Jasper, Copy.ai, Writesonic, etc.
|
||
|
|
- Identify pricing pages and feature lists
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Complexity Assessment:
|
||
|
|
- Dynamic pricing calculators detected
|
||
|
|
- Interactive feature comparisons found
|
||
|
|
- Login-gated content identified
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Playwright Extraction:
|
||
|
|
- Navigate to each pricing page
|
||
|
|
- Interact with pricing sliders
|
||
|
|
- Capture screenshots of pricing tiers
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Feature Analysis:
|
||
|
|
- Extract feature matrices
|
||
|
|
- Compare capabilities
|
||
|
|
- Document limitations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Report Generation:
|
||
|
|
- Competitive positioning matrix
|
||
|
|
- Visual pricing comparison
|
||
|
|
- Feature gap analysis
|
||
|
|
- Strategic recommendations
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 8: Academic Research with Authentication
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Research latest machine learning papers
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "transformer architecture improvements 2024" --depth exhaustive --auth --scrape auto
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Academic Search:
|
||
|
|
- Tavily finds papers on arXiv, IEEE, ACM
|
||
|
|
- Identify open vs. gated content
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Access Strategy:
|
||
|
|
- arXiv: Direct access, no auth needed
|
||
|
|
- IEEE: Institutional access required
|
||
|
|
- ACM: Mixed access levels
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Extraction Approach:
|
||
|
|
- Public papers: Tavily extraction
|
||
|
|
- Gated content: Playwright with auth
|
||
|
|
- PDFs: Download and process
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Citation Network:
|
||
|
|
- Follow reference chains
|
||
|
|
- Identify key contributors
|
||
|
|
- Map research lineage
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Literature Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Chronological development
|
||
|
|
- Key innovations identified
|
||
|
|
- Future directions mapped
|
||
|
|
- Comprehensive bibliography
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 9: Real-time Market Data Research
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Gather current cryptocurrency market analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "cryptocurrency market analysis BTC ETH 2024" --scrape all --interactive --screenshots
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Market Discovery:
|
||
|
|
- Find: CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, TradingView
|
||
|
|
- Identify real-time data sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Dynamic Content Handling:
|
||
|
|
- Playwright loads live charts
|
||
|
|
- Capture price movements
|
||
|
|
- Extract volume data
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Interactive Analysis:
|
||
|
|
- Interact with chart timeframes
|
||
|
|
- Toggle technical indicators
|
||
|
|
- Capture different views
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Data Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Current market conditions
|
||
|
|
- Technical analysis
|
||
|
|
- Sentiment indicators
|
||
|
|
- Visual documentation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Report Output:
|
||
|
|
- Market snapshot with charts
|
||
|
|
- Technical analysis summary
|
||
|
|
- Trading volume trends
|
||
|
|
- Risk assessment
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Example 10: Multi-Domain Research with Parallel Execution
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Scenario
|
||
|
|
Comprehensive analysis of "AI in healthcare 2024"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
/sc:research "AI in healthcare applications 2024" --depth exhaustive --hops 5 --parallel
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Workflow
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
1. Domain Decomposition:
|
||
|
|
Parallel Searches:
|
||
|
|
- Medical AI applications
|
||
|
|
- Regulatory landscape
|
||
|
|
- Market analysis
|
||
|
|
- Technical implementations
|
||
|
|
- Ethical considerations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Multi-Hop Exploration:
|
||
|
|
Each Domain:
|
||
|
|
- Hop 1: Broad landscape
|
||
|
|
- Hop 2: Key players
|
||
|
|
- Hop 3: Case studies
|
||
|
|
- Hop 4: Challenges
|
||
|
|
- Hop 5: Future trends
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Cross-Domain Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Medical ↔ Technical connections
|
||
|
|
- Regulatory ↔ Market impacts
|
||
|
|
- Ethical ↔ Implementation constraints
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Quality Assessment:
|
||
|
|
- Coverage: All domains addressed
|
||
|
|
- Depth: Sufficient detail per domain
|
||
|
|
- Integration: Cross-domain insights
|
||
|
|
- Confidence: 0.87 achieved
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Comprehensive Report:
|
||
|
|
- Executive summary
|
||
|
|
- Domain-specific sections
|
||
|
|
- Integrated analysis
|
||
|
|
- Strategic recommendations
|
||
|
|
- Visual evidence
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Advanced Workflow Patterns
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Pattern 1: Iterative Deepening
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
Round_1:
|
||
|
|
- Broad search for landscape
|
||
|
|
- Identify key areas
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Round_2:
|
||
|
|
- Deep dive into key areas
|
||
|
|
- Extract detailed information
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Round_3:
|
||
|
|
- Fill specific gaps
|
||
|
|
- Resolve contradictions
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Round_4:
|
||
|
|
- Final validation
|
||
|
|
- Quality assurance
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Pattern 2: Source Triangulation
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
Primary_Sources:
|
||
|
|
- Official documentation
|
||
|
|
- Academic papers
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Secondary_Sources:
|
||
|
|
- Industry reports
|
||
|
|
- Expert analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Tertiary_Sources:
|
||
|
|
- Community discussions
|
||
|
|
- User experiences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Cross-validate findings
|
||
|
|
- Identify consensus
|
||
|
|
- Note disagreements
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Pattern 3: Temporal Analysis
|
||
|
|
```yaml
|
||
|
|
Historical_Context:
|
||
|
|
- Past developments
|
||
|
|
- Evolution timeline
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Current_State:
|
||
|
|
- Present situation
|
||
|
|
- Recent changes
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Future_Projections:
|
||
|
|
- Trends analysis
|
||
|
|
- Expert predictions
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Synthesis:
|
||
|
|
- Development trajectory
|
||
|
|
- Inflection points
|
||
|
|
- Future scenarios
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Performance Optimization Tips
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Query Optimization
|
||
|
|
1. Start with specific terms
|
||
|
|
2. Use domain filters early
|
||
|
|
3. Batch similar searches
|
||
|
|
4. Cache intermediate results
|
||
|
|
5. Reuse successful patterns
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Extraction Efficiency
|
||
|
|
1. Assess complexity first
|
||
|
|
2. Use appropriate tool per source
|
||
|
|
3. Parallelize when possible
|
||
|
|
4. Set reasonable timeouts
|
||
|
|
5. Handle errors gracefully
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Synthesis Strategy
|
||
|
|
1. Organize findings early
|
||
|
|
2. Identify patterns quickly
|
||
|
|
3. Resolve conflicts systematically
|
||
|
|
4. Build narrative progressively
|
||
|
|
5. Maintain evidence chains
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Quality Validation Checklist
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Planning Phase
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Clear objectives defined
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate strategy selected
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Resources estimated correctly
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Execution Phase
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All planned searches completed
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Extraction methods appropriate
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Multi-hop chains logical
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Confidence scores calculated
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Synthesis Phase
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All findings integrated
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Contradictions resolved
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Evidence chains complete
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Narrative coherent
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Delivery Phase
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Format appropriate for audience
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Citations complete and accurate
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Visual evidence included
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Confidence levels transparent
|