/researching-on-the-internet

name: researching-on-the-internet
description: Use when planning features and need current API docs, library patterns, or external knowledge; when testing hypotheses about technology choices or claims; when verifying assumptions before design decisions - gathers well-sourced, current information from the internet to inform technical decisions
user-invocable: false

Researching on the Internet

Overview

Gather accurate, current, well-sourced information from the internet to inform planning and design decisions. Test hypotheses, verify claims, and find authoritative sources for APIs, libraries, and best practices.

When to Use

**Use for:**

• Finding current API documentation before integration design
• Testing hypotheses ("Is library X faster than Y?", "Does approach Z work with version N?")
• Verifying technical claims or assumptions
• Researching library comparison and alternatives
• Finding best practices and current community consensus

**Don't use for:**

• Information already in codebase (use codebase search)
• General knowledge within Claude's training (just answer directly)
• Project-specific conventions (check CLAUDE.md)

Core Research Workflow

**Do not use nested subagents.** If you are running as a research subagent, perform the research directly with web/search/fetch tools already available to you. Do not dispatch or invoke additional subagents.

1. **Define question clearly** - specific beats vague 2. **Search official sources first** - docs, release notes, changelogs 3. **Cross-reference** - verify claims across multiple sources 4. **Evaluate quality** - tier sources (official → verified → community) 5. **Report concisely** - lead with answer, provide links and evidence

Hypothesis Testing

When given a hypothesis to test:

1. **Identify falsifiable claims** - break hypothesis into testable parts 2. **Search for supporting evidence** - what confirms this? 3. **Search for disproving evidence** - what contradicts this? 4. **Evaluate source quality** - weight evidence by tier 5. **Report findings** - supported/contradicted/inconclusive with evidence 6. **Note confidence level** - strong consensus vs single source vs conflicting info

**Example:**

Hypothesis: "Library X is faster than Y for large datasets"

Search for:
✓ Benchmarks comparing X and Y
✓ Performance documentation for both
✓ GitHub issues mentioning performance
✓ Real-world case studies

Report:
- Supported: [evidence with links]
- Contradicted: [evidence with links]
- Conclusion: [supported/contradicted/mixed] with [confidence level]

Quick Reference

| Task | Strategy | |------|----------| | **API docs** | Official docs → GitHub README → Recent tutorials | | **Library comparison** | Official sites → npm/PyPI stats → GitHub activity | | **Best practices** | Official guides → Recent posts → Stack Overflow | | **Troubleshooting** | Error search → GitHub issues → Stack Overflow | | **Current state** | Release notes → Changelog → Recent announcements | | **Hypothesis testing** | Define claims → Search both sides → Weight evidence |

Source Evaluation Tiers

| Tier | Sources | Usage | |------|---------|-------| | **1 - Most reliable** | Official docs, release notes, changelogs | Primary evidence | | **2 - Generally reliable** | Verified tutorials, maintained examples, reputable blogs | Supporting evidence | | **3 - Use with caution** | Stack Overflow, forums, old tutorials | Check dates, cross-verify |

Always note source tier in findings.

Search Strategies

**Multiple approaches:**

• WebSearch for overview and current information
• WebFetch for specific documentation pages
• Check MCP servers (Context7, search tools) if available
• Follow links to authoritative sources
• Search official documentation before community resources

**Cross-reference:**

• Verify claims across multiple sources
• Check publication dates - prefer recent
• Flag breaking changes or deprecations
• Note when information might be outdated
• Distinguish stable APIs from experimental features

Reporting Findings

**Lead with answer:**

• Direct answer to question first
• Supporting details with source links second
• Code examples when relevant (with attribution)

**Include metadata:**

• Version numbers and compatibility requirements
• Publication dates for time-sensitive topics
• Security considerations or best practices
• Common gotchas or migration issues
• Confidence level based on source consensus

**Handle uncertainty clearly:**

• "No official documentation found for [topic]" is valid
• Explain what you searched and where you looked
• Distinguish "doesn't exist" from "couldn't find reliable information"
• Present what you found with appropriate caveats
• Suggest alternative search terms or approaches

Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix | |---------|-----| | Searching only one source | Cross-reference minimum 2-3 sources | | Ignoring publication dates | Check dates, flag outdated information | | Treating all sources equally | Use tier system, weight accordingly | | Reporting before verification | Verify claims across sources first | | Vague hypothesis testing | Break into specific falsifiable claims | | Skipping official docs | Always start with tier 1 sources | | Over-confident with single source | Note source tier and look for consensus |