ktg-plugin-marketplace/plugins/voyage/templates/research-brief-template.md
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 7a90d348ad feat(voyage)!: marketplace handoff — rename plugins/ultraplan-local to plugins/voyage [skip-docs]
Session 5 of voyage-rebrand (V6). Operator-authorized cross-plugin scope.

- git mv plugins/ultraplan-local plugins/voyage (rename detected, history preserved)
- .claude-plugin/marketplace.json: voyage entry replaces ultraplan-local
- CLAUDE.md: voyage row in plugin list, voyage in design-system consumer list
- README.md: bulk rename ultra*-local commands -> trek* commands; ultraplan-local refs -> voyage; type discriminators (type: trekbrief/trekreview); session-title pattern (voyage:<command>:<slug>); v4.0.0 release-note paragraph
- plugins/voyage/.claude-plugin/plugin.json: homepage/repository URLs point to monorepo voyage path
- plugins/voyage/verify.sh: drop URL whitelist exception (no longer needed)

Closes voyage-rebrand. bash plugins/voyage/verify.sh PASS 7/7. npm test 361/361.
2026-05-05 15:37:52 +02:00

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 trekresearch 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