feat(ultraplan-local): v1.6.0 — /ultraresearch-local deep research command

Add /ultraresearch-local for structured research combining local codebase
analysis with external knowledge via parallel agent swarms. Produces research
briefs with triangulation, confidence ratings, and source quality assessment.

New command: /ultraresearch-local with modes --quick, --local, --external, --fg.
New agents: research-orchestrator (opus), docs-researcher, community-researcher,
security-researcher, contrarian-researcher, gemini-bridge (all sonnet).
New template: research-brief-template.md.

Integration: --research flag in /ultraplan-local accepts pre-built research
briefs (up to 3), enriches the interview and exploration phases. Planning
orchestrator cross-references brief findings during synthesis.

Design principle: Context Engineering — right information to right agent at
right time. Research briefs are structured artifacts in the pipeline:
ultraresearch → brief → ultraplan --research → plan → ultraexecute.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

plugins/ultraplan-local/templates/research-brief-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+type: ultraresearch-brief
+created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
+question: "{research question}"
+confidence: {0.0-1.0}
+dimensions: {N}
+mcp_servers_used: [{list}]
+local_agents_used: [{list}]
+external_agents_used: [{list}]
+---
+
+# {Research Question Title}
+
+> Generated by ultraresearch-local v{version} on {YYYY-MM-DD}
+
+## Research Question
+
+{The full research question as clarified during interview.}
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{3 sentences maximum. The answer, the confidence level, and the key caveat.}
+
+## Dimensions
+
+*Each dimension represents one facet of the research question, explored by both
+local and external agents. Confidence is rated per dimension.*
+
+### {Dimension Name} -- Confidence: {high | medium | low | contradictory}
+
+**Local findings:**
+- {Finding with source citation (file path or agent name)}
+
+**External findings:**
+- {Finding with source citation (URL)}
+
+**Contradictions:**
+- {If local and external disagree, explain both sides with evidence.
+  Omit this sub-section if no contradictions exist for this dimension.}
+
+*Repeat for each dimension.*
+
+## Local Context
+
+*Findings from codebase analysis agents. Omit sub-sections where no relevant
+findings exist.*
+
+### Architecture
+{Architecture patterns, tech stack, relevant components from architecture-mapper}
+
+### Dependencies
+{Import chains, data flow, external integrations from dependency-tracer}
+
+### Conventions
+{Coding patterns, naming, test conventions from convention-scanner}
+
+### History
+{Recent changes, code ownership, hot files from git-historian}
+
+## External Knowledge
+
+*Findings from external research agents. Omit sub-sections where no relevant
+findings exist.*
+
+### Best Practice
+{Official documentation, recommended patterns from docs-researcher}
+
+### Alternatives
+{Other approaches, competing solutions from community-researcher + contrarian-researcher}
+
+### Security
+{CVEs, audit history, supply chain risks from security-researcher}
+
+### Known Issues
+{Common pitfalls, gotchas, real-world problems from community-researcher}
+
+## Gemini Second Opinion
+
+*Independent research result from Gemini Deep Research. Provides a second
+perspective for triangulation. Omit this section if gemini-bridge was not used
+or was unavailable.*
+
+{Gemini findings reformatted into key findings, sources cited, and areas of
+agreement/disagreement with other agents.}
+
+## Synthesis
+
+*Cross-cutting insights that emerge from combining local and external knowledge.
+This is NOT a summary of the sections above. It is NEW insight from triangulation
+-- things that only become visible when local context meets external knowledge.*
+
+{Example: "The codebase uses pattern X (local), but best practice has shifted to
+pattern Y (external). However, our dependency on Z (local) makes a direct migration
+impractical -- a hybrid approach using Y for new code while maintaining X for
+existing modules is the pragmatic path."}
+
+## Open Questions
+
+*Things that remain unresolved after research. Each is a candidate for follow-up
+research or an assumption to carry forward.*
+
+- {Question 1 -- why it remains open}
+- {Question 2 -- why it remains open}
+
+## Recommendation
+
+*If the research was decision-relevant, provide a concrete recommendation with
+reasoning. If the research was exploratory (understanding, not deciding), omit
+this section entirely.*
+
+{Recommendation with rationale, citing specific findings from above.}
+
+## Sources
+
+| # | Source | Type | Quality | Used in |
+|---|--------|------|---------|---------|
+| 1 | {URL or codebase path} | {official / community / codebase / gemini} | {high / medium / low} | {dimension name} |
+
+*Quality assessment:*
+- **high** — official documentation, verified codebase analysis, peer-reviewed
+- **medium** — reputable community source, well-maintained blog, established project
+- **low** — unverified, outdated (>1 year), single-source claim, opinion piece