name: research-duo description: Structured research collaboration between Claude and Gemini. Use for brainstorming story angles, exploring complex topics, developing ideas through iterative back-and-forth. Trigger phrases include "research with Gemini", "brainstorm together", "explore this topic", "develop this idea", or when the user wants multi-perspective thinking on a subject.

Research Duo: Claude + Gemini Collaborative Research

Overview

This skill enables structured, iterative research collaboration between Claude and Gemini. It's designed for exploring complex topics, developing story angles, brainstorming ideas, and reaching well-considered conclusions through multi-perspective thinking.

Core Methodology

The research process follows a structured back-and-forth pattern:

Gemini starts with initial ideas, angles, or research
Claude iterates by adding perspective, pushing back, refining
Exchange continues for a specified number of rounds
Final synthesis by either Claude or Gemini (user's choice)

When to Use

Brainstorming story angles or article ideas
Exploring a topic from multiple perspectives
Developing research foundations for writing
When the user wants structured collaborative thinking
Complex problems that benefit from iterative refinement

Process Steps

Step 1: Clarify the Topic

Before starting, establish:

Subject: What are we researching?
Angle (if any): What perspective interests the user?
Starting knowledge: What does the user already know?

Step 2: Determine Parameters

Ask or infer:

Number of rounds: How many back-and-forth exchanges? (Default: 4)
Who summarizes: Claude or Gemini for final report?
Depth: Quick exploration or thorough investigation?

Step 3: Execute the Rounds

Round 1 - Gemini Leads: Ask Gemini for initial research, angles, key players, existing coverage, and central tensions. Be specific in the prompt.

gemini "We're researching [TOPIC]. I need you to explore:
1. Key angles or approaches
2. What's already been covered vs. underexplored
3. Key players, sources, or voices
4. Central tensions or conflicts
Be specific. No generalities."

Round 2+ - Claude Iterates: After each Gemini response:

Identify what's strongest
Add Claude's own perspective and refinements
Push back on weak points
Ask sharpening questions
Send iteration back to Gemini

gemini "Here's my iteration on your response:

**What's strong:** [specific elements]

**What I'd add or refine:** [Claude's additions]

**Where I need more specificity:** [gaps to fill]

**Push back:** [challenges to Gemini's thinking]

Round [N]. Sharpen it."

Final Round: Request a synthesis or final report. If Gemini summarizes:

gemini "This is the final round. Synthesize everything into a FINAL REPORT that includes:
1. Summary (2-3 sentences)
2. Central thesis
3. Recommended structure
4. Key elements to feature
5. First sources to contact
6. Opening paragraph (ready to use)
7. Headline options
8. Risks and mitigations

Make this actionable."

Step 4: Present to User

After the final round, present:

Clear summary of findings
Actionable next steps
Any files or documents created

Collaboration Principles

For Gemini Prompts:

Be specific, not vague
Provide context from previous rounds
Ask for concrete examples, names, tools
Request pushback explicitly

For Claude's Iterations:

Add genuine perspective, not just paraphrasing
Challenge weak arguments
Introduce angles Gemini missed
Build on strengths, refine weaknesses

For the Process:

Track progress with TodoWrite
Each round should sharpen, not just expand
Quality over quantity in exchanges
End with actionable output

Example Flow

User: "Research story angles about AI in education"

Round 1: Claude asks Gemini for initial angles, key players, tensions Round 2: Claude identifies strongest angles, adds own perspective, sends back Round 3: Claude pushes for specificity on chosen angle, risks, sources Round 4: Gemini or Claude produces final report with structure, opening, sources

Output Formats

Depending on the research goal, final output may include:

Story starter document
Research roadmap
Source list with contact priorities
Opening paragraphs (ready to use)
Headline options
Risk assessment

File Management

Initialization

Before starting research, check if the folder structure exists. If not, initialize it:

# Check current structure
ls -la

# If folders don't exist, create them
mkdir -p voice drafts stories archive

Also check for a CLAUDE.md in the working directory. If missing, create one using the template in this skill (see "CLAUDE.md Template" section below).

Folder Structure

Research outputs are saved in a structured folder system. Before saving, check the working directory for existing folders (typically drafts/, stories/, archive/).

Content/
├── voice/                      # Author's sample articles for style matching
│   ├── sample-1.md             # Previous article by author
│   ├── sample-2.md             # Another example of author's style
│   └── ...                     # More samples (3-5 recommended)
│
├── drafts/
│   └── [story-title]/
│       ├── description.md      # What the story is about
│       ├── topic_ideas.md      # Angles and ideas explored
│       ├── to_pursue.md        # Selected direction and next steps
│       ├── sources.md          # People/orgs to contact
│       ├── research_notes.md   # Raw findings from collaboration
│       └── opening.md          # Draft opening paragraphs
│
├── stories/
│   └── [story-title]/
│       ├── [title].md          # Final finished article
│       └── [auxiliary].md      # Supporting materials, cut content
│
└── archive/
    └── [story-title]/
        └── [files].md          # Abandoned but saved work

When to Save

During research:

After each significant round, consider saving intermediate findings
Create the draft folder when a clear story direction emerges
Save topic_ideas.md after brainstorming rounds
Save sources.md when contact list is established

After final report:

Save the complete research output to drafts/[story-title]/
Include: description.md, topic_ideas.md, to_pursue.md, sources.md, opening.md

Folder naming:

Use kebab-case for folder names: the-great-unmasking, ai-neurodivergent-children
Keep names short but descriptive

Reading from Drafts

When starting new research, check existing drafts for:

Related angles that might inform new work
Sources that could be reused
Ideas that were explored but not pursued (may fit new story)

# Check what drafts exist
ls drafts/

# Read a previous story's ideas for inspiration
cat drafts/[story-title]/topic_ideas.md

Moving Between Folders

drafts/ → stories/: When article is complete, move to stories/ with final article
drafts/ → archive/: When direction is abandoned but work has value
archive/: Never delete, just move here. May be useful later.

File Templates

description.md:

# [Story Title]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence description]

## Central Thesis
[The core argument or angle]

## Why This Matters
[Universal hook / reader relevance]

to_pursue.md:

# Direction: [Chosen Angle]

## Structure
[Section outline]

## First Steps
1. [Contact source X]
2. [Research tool Y]
3. [Draft opening]

## Risks to Watch
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]

sources.md:

# Sources

## Priority Contacts
1. **[Name/Org]** - [Why they matter] - [How to reach]
2. ...

## Communities to Monitor
- [Subreddit/forum]
- [Podcast]

## Public Figures (for reference)
- [Name] - [Relevance]

Voice Matching

The voice/ Folder

The voice/ folder contains sample articles written by the author. These serve as style guides for generating new content that matches the author's unique voice.

Setup

Create the voice folder:

mkdir -p voice

Add 3-5 sample articles that represent the author's best work:

# Copy existing articles into voice/
cp path/to/my-article.md voice/sample-1.md

What to Include

Choose samples that demonstrate:

Tone: Formal vs conversational, serious vs playful
Structure: How the author opens, transitions, closes
Sentence rhythm: Short punchy vs flowing prose
Vocabulary: Technical level, favorite phrases
Perspective: First person, second person, third person

Ideal samples:

Articles the author is proud of
Different topics but consistent voice
Various lengths (short post, long feature)
Recent work (voice evolves over time)

How Claude Uses voice/

Before writing or editing, Claude reads the voice/ samples to extract:

Opening patterns: How does the author hook readers?
Paragraph length: Short and punchy? Or longer, flowing?
Transition style: Abrupt cuts? Smooth bridges?
Closing approach: Call to action? Reflection? Open question?
Characteristic phrases: Recurring words, constructions
What to avoid: Patterns the author never uses

Prompting with Voice

When starting a new article, Claude should:

# Read voice samples first
cat voice/*.md

# Then reference in writing prompts to Gemini
gemini "Write an opening for [TOPIC]. Match this voice:
- [Extracted characteristics from samples]
- Opening style: [observed pattern]
- Tone: [observed tone]
- Avoid: [things author never does]"

Voice Analysis Template

After reading voice/ samples, document the author's style:

## Voice Profile

### Tone
[e.g., Conversational but authoritative, uses humor sparingly]

### Structure Patterns
- Opens with: [scene/question/statement/anecdote]
- Paragraphs: [short/medium/long]
- Sections: [many short/few long]
- Closes with: [reflection/question/call-to-action]

### Sentence Style
- Length: [varied/consistently short/long]
- Rhythm: [staccato/flowing/mixed]
- Voice: [active/passive preference]

### Vocabulary
- Technical level: [accessible/specialized]
- Favorite words: [list recurring terms]
- Avoids: [jargon, cliches, specific words]

### Signature Moves
- [e.g., "Uses single-sentence paragraphs for emphasis"]
- [e.g., "Always includes one self-deprecating aside"]
- [e.g., "Ends sections with questions"]

### Never Does
- [e.g., "Never uses exclamation points"]
- [e.g., "Avoids first-person plural 'we'"]
- [e.g., "No em-dashes"]

Maintaining Voice Across Drafts

During the writing phase:

Read voice/ samples before each major draft
After writing, compare draft against samples
Ask: "Would the author write it this way?"
Adjust tone, structure, word choice to match

During editing with Gemini:

gemini "Review this draft against the author's voice:
[paste voice profile]

Flag any sections that don't match the author's style."

Commands

Command	Purpose
`gemini "prompt"`	Send a prompt to Gemini
`gemini --resume latest`	Continue previous session if needed

Tips

Use TodoWrite to track rounds
Specify who does the final summary upfront
Push for concrete examples, not abstractions
The best insights often come from challenging each other
End with something the user can act on immediately

CLAUDE.md Template

When initializing a new Content workspace, create this CLAUDE.md:

# Content Writing Workspace

## Project Purpose
This workspace is for researching, developing, and writing articles and stories. Claude and Gemini collaborate on research; Claude assists with writing and editing.

## Folder Structure
- `voice/` - Author's sample articles for style/tone matching
- `drafts/` - Work in progress: ideas, research, outlines, early drafts
- `stories/` - Completed, polished articles ready for publication
- `archive/` - Abandoned work that might be useful later

## Voice Matching

The `voice/` folder contains 3-5 sample articles written by the author. Before writing any new content, Claude should:

1. Read all files in `voice/` to understand the author's style
2. Extract patterns: opening style, paragraph length, tone, vocabulary
3. Note what the author avoids (cliches, certain phrases, structures)
4. Match these patterns when drafting new content

Key elements to identify:
- How does the author open articles? (scene, question, statement)
- Paragraph rhythm (short punchy vs flowing)
- Transition style between sections
- Closing approach (reflection, question, call-to-action)
- Signature phrases or constructions
- Things the author never does

When writing, ask: "Would the author write it this way?"

## Writing Style

### Voice
- Clear, direct, conversational
- No jargon unless necessary (then explain it)
- Show, don't tell
- Concrete examples over abstractions

### Structure
- Strong opening hook (first 100 words matter most)
- Clear thesis stated early
- Sections that build on each other
- Ending that resonates, not just summarizes

### Formatting
- No em-dashes, use commas instead
- No emojis unless explicitly requested
- Short paragraphs (3-4 sentences max)
- Subheadings for scanability

## Research Collaboration (with Gemini)

Use the research-duo skill for:
- Brainstorming story angles
- Exploring topics from multiple perspectives
- Building source lists
- Pressure-testing ideas

Process:
1. Gemini provides initial research/angles
2. Claude iterates, pushes back, refines
3. Exchange for N rounds (typically 4)
4. Final synthesis into actionable starter

## File Naming
- Folders: kebab-case (`the-great-unmasking`)
- Files: descriptive kebab-case (`topic-ideas.md`, `sources.md`)
- Final articles: story title (`the-great-unmasking.md`)

## Workflow

### Starting a New Story
1. Research with Gemini (use research-duo skill)
2. Save findings to `drafts/[story-title]/`
3. Develop outline and opening
4. Draft iteratively
5. Move to `stories/` when complete

### Files to Create in drafts/
- `description.md` - What the story is about, thesis, why it matters
- `topic-ideas.md` - Angles explored during research
- `to-pursue.md` - Chosen direction, structure, next steps
- `sources.md` - People/orgs to contact, communities, references
- `opening.md` - Draft opening paragraphs
- `outline.md` - Section-by-section structure
- `draft.md` - Working draft of the article

### Moving to stories/
When an article is complete:
1. Create `stories/[story-title]/`
2. Move final article as `[title].md`
3. Keep auxiliary files (cut content, extended research) as separate .md files
4. Delete or archive the drafts folder

### Archiving
Move to `archive/` when:
- Direction abandoned but research has value
- Story killed but might revive later
- Never delete, always archive

## Collaboration Notes
- Claude handles structure, editing, and writing assistance
- Gemini provides research depth and alternative perspectives
- User makes final editorial decisions
- Save work frequently to drafts/

research-duo

SKILL.md