updating-knowledge

What this skill does

# Updating Knowledge

## Core Principles

- **Systematic > ad-hoc** - Follow research methodology, don't scatter searches randomly
- **Cross-validate** - Verify claims across multiple independent sources
- **Confidence tracking** - Explicitly flag single-source claims and gaps
- **Concise output** - Present findings efficiently, introspection in thinking blocks

## Preflight Check

**CRITICAL: This skill requires web_search tool access.**

Before proceeding:
1. Verify web_search tool is available in tool set
2. If NOT available:
   - Immediately inform user: "I need web search enabled for research tasks. Please toggle on 'Web search' in the feature menu."
   - DO NOT attempt research without web_search
   - DO NOT proceed with workflow

If web_search is unavailable, fail fast—don't waste context attempting workarounds.

## Imperative Triggers

Use this skill when:
- User says "Research", "Investigate", "What's current on", "Latest info on", "Find out about"
- Query requires synthesizing multiple authoritative sources
- Topic likely changed since training cutoff
- Technical/product questions where documentation is essential
- Contradictory information needs resolution
- Building comprehensive understanding for ongoing work

**Note:** Avoid triggering on generic action verbs like "update" (which could mean file/code changes). Focus on explicit knowledge-gathering requests.

## Research Workflow

### 1. Scope Definition (internal)

Identify in thinking block:
- What specifically needs investigation
- Current knowledge baseline
- Known gaps
- Required depth (overview vs comprehensive)

### 2. Source Gathering (2-10 tool calls)

**Source priority:**
1. Official documentation, project repos, company announcements
2. Academic papers, technical blogs with clear expertise
3. Community discussions (for ecosystem context only)

**Tool selection:**
- `web_search` - Find authoritative sources
- `web_fetch` - Extract complete content from any URL (no prior search required)
- Internal tools (GitHub, Drive, etc.) - Company/personal context
- Multiple tool types as needed

**Gather 3-5 diverse sources minimum** for cross-validation.

### 3. Synthesis (internal)

In thinking block:
- Cross-validate major claims across sources
- Note contradictions explicitly
- Track publication dates
- Assess source credibility
- Identify remaining gaps

### 4. Output (concise)

Present findings concisely:

```markdown
## [Topic]

**Key findings:**
[2-3 sentence summary with most important updates]

**Current state:**
[Concise description of what's true now]

**Changes since cutoff:**
[Only if relevant - what's different]

**Gaps:**
[Only if user needs to know - what wasn't found]

Sources: [URLs]
```

**Confidence indicators:**
- State explicitly when claims are single-source
- Note contradictions between sources
- Flag unverified information
- Quantify confidence (high/medium/low) when uncertain

## Quality Standards

**Minimum requirements:**
- 3+ independent sources consulted
- Major claims cross-validated
- Explicit confidence assessment
- Remaining gaps identified when relevant

**Avoid:**
- Single-source claims presented as definitive
- Ignoring publication dates
- Marketing language as fact
- Verbose deliberation in final output (use thinking blocks)
- Over-explaining research process to user

## Tool Usage Notes

**web_fetch capabilities:**
- Can fetch ANY URL directly - doesn't require prior search results
- Use for complete documentation pages, technical articles
- Effective for deep content extraction after search identifies sources

**web_search patterns:**
- Start specific, broaden if needed
- Never repeat similar queries - make each unique
- Use current date context when relevant (November 2025)

**Internal tools:**
- Prioritize for company/personal data
- Combine with web tools for comparative analysis

## Output Efficiency

**DO:**
- Present findings concisely
- Use thinking blocks for deliberation
- Lead with key takeaways
- State confidence explicitly when low
- Cite sources inline

**DON'T:**
- Narrate research process unless asked
- Include verbose phase descriptions
- Over-explain methodology
- Repeat information across sections
- Document internal reasoning in output

## Example Outputs

**Technical documentation inquiry:**
```
TypeScript 5.3 (Nov 2023) added import attributes for JSON modules. The syntax uses `with` instead of deprecated `assert`. Runtime performance unchanged—validation happens at parse time.

Gap: No official benchmarks comparing validation overhead across bundlers.

Sources: [TS release notes, GitHub issue #54242, esbuild docs]
```

**Conflicting information:**
```
React Server Components ship in Next.js 13.4+ (stable) and Remix 2.0 (experimental). 

Contradiction: Meta's blog claims "production-ready" while Remix docs flag "breaking changes expected." Cross-validation shows Meta refers to Next.js implementation only.

Confidence: High on Next.js status, medium on Remix timeline.

Sources: [Next.js changelog, Remix docs, React.dev]
```

**Avoid narrating process:**
```
❌ "After conducting extensive research and cross-validating multiple authoritative sources..."
✓ Just present findings with source attribution
```