--- name: research-capture description: The durable research-evidence-trail discipline. At a deep-research-bearing research-first gate, persist the FULL claim-level trail (verified ∧ REFUTED) as -.md at the configured governance.research_path (defaults to .foundry/research/) from the research-artifact template, and author the ADR at the configured governance.decisions_path (defaults to .foundry/decisions/) with a `## Refuted / disconfirming evidence` section — so a later auditor can check whether the claimed "industry consensus" was real. A discipline (a template + an author convention), NOT a code helper. Trigger after a deep-research run feeds a design decision. --- # /foundry:research-capture — durably persist the research gate's full evidence trail The research-first `record` phase writes a **distilled** decision record (at the configured `governance.decisions_path`, defaults to `.foundry/decisions/`) — the *why*. But the **full claim-level evidence** behind a `deep-research` run (every verified claim, its adversarial vote, the source table, and crucially the **refuted / killed** claims) lives only in an **ephemeral** workflow-output file and is lost on cleanup. So a later auditor asking *"was this 'industry consensus' actually real?"* has only the author's summary. This discipline closes that gap **the standard way** — a durable **template** + an **author convention**, exactly as the ADR / decision-record ecosystem does (adr-tools / log4brains / MADR ship `new`/`link` scaffolders + templates; **none** ship a byte-identical emitter or a fail-closed completeness classifier). ## It is a DISCIPLINE, not a code helper (the deep-spec-audit re-ground) The v1 design — a deterministic byte-identical *capture helper* + a fail-closed *completeness validator* — was **novel machinery for a solved problem** (a deep-spec-audit category-error). Determinism / byte-identity has **no prior-art basis** for a human-read prose doc (it governs machine-consumed attestations, not narratives). The hand-written `.foundry/research/wf_c3c6df43-3b5-machinery-view.md` — complete, with a *Refuted/Killed* section + both-way ADR links, authored with **zero** new code — is the decisive disproof. So capture is **authoring from a template**; the lightweight drop-in wiring lint this line originally shipped was removed with the drop-in-check registry and was not ported (see the note below) — capture ships no code. ## The discipline At a **deep-research-bearing** research-first gate (a multi-source run, not a mechanical/obvious-standard decision): 1. **Persist the full trail.** Author `-.md` at the **configured governance-record research location** — `governance.research_path` in `.claude/foundry-project.json` (defaults to **`.foundry/research/`**) — from `research-artifact-template.md` (this skill's sibling). The `-` filename is **path-safe** (`[a-z0-9._-]`). Required sections: the **run-id**, the **question**, the **stats** (sources / claims / verified / confirmed / refuted), the **verified claims**, the **`## Refuted / disconfirming evidence`** section (**REQUIRED — present even if `(none)`**), the **sources** table, and a **both-way link** with the decision record. 2. **Retain the disconfirming evidence in the ADR too.** Author the ADR — at the **configured governance-record decisions location** (`governance.decisions_path` in `.claude/foundry-project.json`, defaults to **`.foundry/decisions/`**) — **with a `## Refuted / disconfirming evidence` section** (Nygard *Consequences*-style) so the killed/disconfirming claims are retained in the decision record itself as well as the linked artifact. 3. **Link both ways.** The ADR points at the artifact; the artifact points at the ADR. **The one load-bearing rule:** the **Refuted / disconfirming evidence is NEVER dropped.** A conclusion retains its disconfirming evidence — that is what lets a later auditor re-judge whether the consensus held. This is woven into the research-first `record` phase (`skills/research-first/SKILL.md`) — capture is not a separate step bolted on; it is *how* a deep-research-bearing gate records. ## Honest limitations (advisory, not enforced) - **Advisory, not a hard gate.** The discipline instructs persistence at a research gate; per-run enforcement (a gate that rejects an un-captured run) is a deferred hook (touches `hooks/**`) — the same posture as `operator-status-protocol` / `research-first`. - **Deep-research-bearing gates only.** A mechanical/obvious-standard decision that ran no multi-source research has no trail to persist; the discipline does not manufacture one. - **Fidelity is the author's** (cooperating-operator). The discipline preserves the *shape* (incl. the Refuted section); it cannot verify the author transcribed the run faithfully — the same trusted-author bound every ADR convention rests on. ## Exercise **Currently unverified by machine (named honestly).** The drop-in **wiring lint** (a drop-in per-check selftest, AC-RCAP-1..3 — confirming `research-artifact-template.md` carries its required `## Refuted` section and that `skills/research-first/SKILL.md`'s `record` phase references this discipline) and its `foundry-doctor.py --research-capture-selftest` registration were removed with the rest of the drop-in-check registry (the v0.25.0 test-suite realignment, the doctor-thinning to a 5-check probe — see `skills/doctor/SKILL.md`) and were **not** ported to the `tests/` pytest suite. The discipline itself is unaffected (it was always advisory prose + a template, never a hard gate — see "Honest limitations" above); what is gone is the cheap presence check that the template + the `research-first` cross-reference haven't silently drifted apart. A future port belongs in `tests/` (CONSTITUTION.md §8) as a plain file-presence/grep-shaped assertion, not a new drop-in CLI.