Kjell Tore Guttormsen
0508edff15
- brief-validator: BRIEF_TYPE_VALUES ['ultrabrief','ultrareview'] -> ['trekbrief','trekreview'] + dependent branches - research-validator: 'ultraresearch-brief' -> 'trekresearch-brief' - review-validator: 'ultrareview' -> 'trekreview' - 3 templates frontmatter type: - 4 synthetic fixtures: ultraplan-synthetic/ultrareview-synthetic -> trek* (frontmatter only; bodies untouched, Jaccard floor preserved) - 2 trekreview fixtures: type: trekreview - 6 validator-test fixtures + asserts - agents/review-coordinator.md frontmatter example Atomic: validator + fixtures committed together — partial state would cause vacuous test passes or hard validator rejection. Part of voyage-rebrand session 2 (W3.3 / Step 5). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
122 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
122 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: trekresearch-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
|