---

name: multi-source-investigation description: Conducts systematic investigations across diverse information sources with cross-validation and credibility assessment. Use when researching complex topics, fact-checking claims, understanding different perspectives, or building comprehensive understanding. Triggers on phrases like "investigate", "verify", "fact check", "cross-reference", "multiple sources", "different perspectives on". tools:

• WebSearch
• WebFetch
• Read
• Grep
• Glob

---

Multi-Source Investigation

This skill guides systematic investigation across diverse sources with rigorous validation.

Phase 1: Investigation Scope

Central Question

• What exactly are you investigating?
• What would a complete answer look like?
• What level of certainty is needed?

Stakeholder Mapping

Identify who has knowledge or interests:

• Domain experts
• Practitioners
• Affected parties
• Critics/skeptics
• Regulators/authorities

Known Perspectives

• What positions already exist on this topic?
• Who holds each position?
• What evidence supports each?

CHECKPOINT: Confirm investigation scope with user.

Phase 2: Source Diversification

Source Type Matrix

Minimum Source Diversity

Aim for at least:

• 2+ academic sources
• 2+ credible news/journalism sources
• 1+ official/institutional source
• 1+ expert commentary
• Primary data when available

Phase 3: Systematic Retrieval

Search Execution

For each source type:

Academic:

Copysite:arxiv.org OR site:scholar.google.com [topic]

News/Journalism:

Copysite:reuters.com OR site:apnews.com [topic]

Official:

Copysite:gov OR site:edu [topic]

Information Extraction

For each source, document:

• Source metadata (author, date, outlet)
• Key claims made
• Evidence provided
• Methodology (if applicable)
• Potential biases
• Links to other sources

Phase 4: Credibility Assessment

CRAAP Test

Credibility Scoring

Rate each source 1-5:

• 5: Highly credible (peer-reviewed, authoritative, transparent)
• 4: Credible (reputable source, clear methodology)
• 3: Moderately credible (some concerns but usable)
• 2: Questionable (significant issues, use cautiously)
• 1: Not credible (exclude from analysis)

Threshold: Only include sources scoring ≥ 3

Phase 5: Cross-Validation

Claim Validation Matrix

Legend: ✓=supports, ✗=contradicts, ~=nuanced, ?=no data

Handling Disagreements

When sources conflict:

1. Assess relative credibility
2. Check for newer evidence
3. Identify reasons for disagreement
4. Note the uncertainty

CHECKPOINT: Present conflicting findings for user input.

Phase 6: Perspective Synthesis

Perspective Map

Copy                    Position A
                        |
    Position D ----[Topic]---- Position B
                        |
                    Position C

For each position:

• Who holds it?
• What evidence supports it?
• What are its limitations?
• How does it relate to others?

Certainty Classification

• Well-established: High consensus, strong evidence
• Likely: Preponderance of evidence
• Uncertain: Conflicting evidence
• Unknown: Insufficient data
• Contested: Active debate, valid arguments on multiple sides

Phase 7: Investigation Report

Output Structure

Copy# Investigation: [Topic]

## Question
[Central question investigated]

## Methodology
- Sources searched: [List]
- Time period: [Range]
- Inclusion criteria: [Criteria]

## Source Summary
| Source | Type | Credibility | Key Claims |
|--------|------|-------------|------------|
| [Source] | [Type] | [Score] | [Claims] |

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Statement]
- Evidence: [Summary]
- Sources: [Citations]
- Certainty: [Level]

### Finding 2: [Statement]
[Same structure]

## Contested Points
- [Point]: [Summary of disagreement]

## Perspective Map
[Visual or narrative of different positions]

## Limitations
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]

## Conclusions
[What can be confidently concluded]
[What remains uncertain]

## References
[Formatted citations]