research-opportunity-investigator

What this skill does

# Research & Opportunity Investigator

Systematic research and opportunity analysis for ACP protocol integration with external projects, protocols, and tools.

## CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS

**This skill operates under strict guardrails. The assistant MUST:**

### 1. NEVER Proceed Without Explicit User Confirmation
- Ask clarifying questions at EVERY phase gate before proceeding
- Do NOT proceed based on assumed understanding
- Wait for explicit user responses before moving forward
- Present findings and wait for validation

### 2. NEVER Make Ungrounded Claims
- All findings MUST reference specific sources (URLs, documentation, code)
- Format: `[Statement] (Source: [URL/document], [section])`
- If information cannot be verified, mark as: `[UNGROUNDED—requires verification]`
- Maintain running source registry throughout research

### 3. ALL Analysis Must Be Source-Grounded
- Every technical claim requires evidence
- Cite specific code, documentation, or announcements
- Distinguish between: `[VERIFIED]`, `[INFERRED]`, `[ASSUMED]`

### 4. Mandatory ACP Summary Document Before RFC
- MUST create comprehensive ACP summary document
- Summary MUST cover: existing RFCs, schemas, spec chapters
- Summary enables RFC validation against current state
- User MUST approve summary before RFC generation

### 5. RFCs Must Trace to Existing ACP Specification
- Every RFC proposal MUST reference existing spec sections
- Show which chapters/RFCs are affected
- Demonstrate compatibility with current design

---

## Workflow Overview

```
Research & Opportunity Investigation Workflow:

□ Phase 1: RESEARCH SCOPING
  ├─ Define research target and objectives
  ├─ Establish success criteria
  └─ GATE: User confirms research scope

□ Phase 2: DISCOVERY & COLLECTION
  ├─ Web search for documentation, repos, announcements
  ├─ Source registration and cataloging
  └─ GATE: User confirms source coverage

□ Phase 3: DEEP ANALYSIS
  ├─ Technical architecture analysis
  ├─ Feature mapping and comparison
  ├─ Gap identification
  └─ GATE: User confirms analysis accuracy

□ Phase 4: ACP CONTEXT SUMMARY
  ├─ Generate comprehensive ACP summary
  ├─ Map existing RFCs, schemas, spec chapters
  ├─ Identify integration points
  └─ GATE: User approves ACP summary document

□ Phase 5: OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT
  ├─ Gap analysis (what target lacks that ACP provides)
  ├─ Collaboration opportunities
  ├─ Implementation feasibility
  └─ GATE: User confirms opportunity assessment

□ Phase 6: RFC GENERATION
  ├─ Draft RFC for identified opportunities
  ├─ Validate against ACP summary
  ├─ Cross-reference existing specs
  └─ GATE: User approves RFC content

□ Phase 7: DELIVERABLES PACKAGING
  ├─ Final summary document
  ├─ Gap analysis report
  ├─ RFC proposal(s)
  └─ GATE: User confirms all deliverables
```

---

## Phase 1: Research Scoping

### 1.1 Scope Definition Template

```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🔍 RESEARCH SCOPE DEFINITION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

RESEARCH TARGET:
  Name: [Project/Protocol/Tool name]
  Type: [IDE/Protocol/Framework/Tool]
  Primary URL: [Main website/repository]

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
  Primary Goal: [What are we trying to learn/achieve?]
  
  Specific Questions:
    1. [Question 1]
    2. [Question 2]
    3. [Question 3]

SUCCESS CRITERIA:
  □ [Criterion 1 - measurable outcome]
  □ [Criterion 2 - measurable outcome]
  □ [Criterion 3 - measurable outcome]

ACP INTEGRATION FOCUS:
  □ Gap-filling opportunity (target lacks capability ACP provides)
  □ Protocol integration (technical compatibility)
  □ Collaboration opportunity (partnership/adoption)
  □ Competitive analysis (understanding landscape)
  □ Other: _______________

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
⚠️  Please confirm this scope before proceeding with discovery.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
```

### 1.2 Scoping Questions

Ask these questions to establish research scope (2-3 per message max):

**Target Identification:**
- What specific project/protocol/tool are we researching?
- What is the primary URL or repository?
- What problem does this target solve?

**Objective Clarification:**
- What do you hope to achieve through this research?
- Are you looking for integration, collaboration, or competitive understanding?
- What would a successful outcome look like?

**Constraints:**
- Are there any aspects that are out of scope?
- What timeline or resource constraints exist?
- Are there any competing priorities?

---

## Phase 2: Discovery & Collection

### 2.1 Source Registration Template

```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📚 SOURCE REGISTRATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

REGISTERED SOURCES:

  [SRC-001] Official Documentation
    └─ URL: [url]
    └─ Type: documentation
    └─ Accessed: [date]
    └─ Relevance: [high/medium/low]
    └─ Key Sections: [list relevant sections]

  [SRC-002] GitHub Repository
    └─ URL: [url]
    └─ Type: source_code
    └─ Accessed: [date]
    └─ Relevance: [high/medium/low]
    └─ Key Files: [list relevant files]

  [SRC-003] ...

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
SOURCE GAPS (information needed but not found):

  □ [Gap 1] - Required for: [analysis area]
  □ [Gap 2] - Required for: [analysis area]

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
⚠️  Please confirm these sources are sufficient or identify additional sources.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
```

### 2.2 Discovery Search Strategy

For each research target, systematically search:

**Tier 1 - Primary Sources (MUST search):**
```
□ Official documentation site
□ GitHub/GitLab repository
□ Official announcements/blog posts
□ API/Protocol specifications
```

**Tier 2 - Secondary Sources (SHOULD search):**
```
□ Technical blog posts from team members
□ Conference talks/presentations
□ Community discussions (Discord, Slack, Forums)
□ Integration guides from partners
```

**Tier 3 - Tertiary Sources (MAY search):**
```
□ Third-party reviews and analyses
□ Comparison articles
□ Issue tracker discussions
□ Social media announcements
```

### 2.3 Evidence Grounding Format

All findings MUST use this grounding format:

```markdown
[Finding Statement]
  └─ Source: [SRC-XXX], [specific section/line/page]
  └─ Evidence Type: [VERIFIED|INFERRED|ASSUMED]
  └─ Confidence: [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]
  └─ Quote/Reference: "[relevant excerpt]"
```

---

## Phase 3: Deep Analysis

### 3.1 Technical Architecture Analysis

For each research target, analyze:

```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🏗️ TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

CORE ARCHITECTURE:
  
  Components:
    □ [Component 1]: [Description] (Source: [SRC-XXX])
    □ [Component 2]: [Description] (Source: [SRC-XXX])
  
  Data Flow:
    [Component A] → [Component B] → [Component C]
  
  Key Abstractions:
    □ [Abstraction 1]: [Purpose]
    □ [Abstraction 2]: [Purpose]

PROTOCOL/API DESIGN:
  
  Communication Pattern: [request-response/streaming/event-driven]
  Data Format: [JSON/Protocol Buffers/Other]
  Transport: [HTTP/WebSocket/IPC/Other]
  
  Key Endpoints/Methods:
    □ [Endpoint 1]: [Purpose] (Source: [SRC-XXX])
    □ [Endpoint 2]: [Purpose] (Source: [SRC-XXX])

EXTENSION POINTS:
  
  □ [Extension Point 1]: [How external tools integrate]
  □ [Extension Point 2]: [How external tools integrate]

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
```

### 3.2 Feature Mapping Template

```markdown
## Feature Comparison Matrix

| Feature Area | Target Has | ACP Provides | Gap/Overlap |
|--------------|----------