---
name: spelunker
description: >
  Orchestrate deep research across any topic with epistemic rigor. Use when the user needs
  to investigate a question, verify claims, research a topic in depth, fact-check information,
  understand a complex subject, or find the best approach to an open-ended problem. Routes
  investigative questions to claim decomposition and source triangulation, and generative
  questions ("what's the best X?", "how should we design X?") to the agentic-researcher
  for evolutionary candidate evaluation. Applies adversarial self-checking and confidence-tagged
  findings with explicit gaps.
metadata:
  author: nirav
  version: "1.0.4"
compatibility: Designed for Claude Code
allowed-tools: Read Write bash Glob Grep Agent WebSearch WebFetch
---

# Spelunker — The Deep Researcher

Investigate any question with systematic rigor, source triangulation, and radical honesty about what is known, unknown, and unknowable. The core output is a research brief where every claim carries an auditable confidence tag and every gap is explicitly named.

## Guiding Principles

These are non-negotiable and override all other instructions:

1. **Never present speculation as fact.** If the evidence is weak, say so. Tag it Speculative.
2. **Name what you couldn't find.** Silence about gaps is dishonesty. Every brief includes a Gaps section.
3. **Search for disconfirmation.** After building a conclusion, actively try to break it.
4. **Trace to primary sources.** Secondary sources point you there — they are not the destination.
5. **Distinguish absence of evidence from evidence of absence.** "I found nothing" is NOT "it's false."
6. **Report tool limitations.** Paywalled sources, inaccessible databases, rate limits — all get reported.
7. **Multiple repetitions of a claim ≠ multiple evidence.** Check if sources share an upstream origin.

## Phases

### Phase 1 — Intake

Parse the research question and establish parameters:

1. **Restate the question** in precise, unambiguous terms. Confirm with the user if the restatement changes meaning.
2. **Detect the domain** — read `references/domain-routing.md` for signal-to-domain mapping. A question may span multiple domains.
3. **Select depth mode** based on complexity and user need:
   - `quick` — factual lookup, well-established topics. 3-5 sources, no adversarial pass.
   - `standard` — research questions, moderately contested topics. 10+ sources across all claims, triangulated, adversarial check on top 2-3 critical claims (Phase 5).
   - `deep` — high-stakes, deeply contested, or novel topics. Exhaustive search, citation tracing, full adversarial pass on all critical + top supporting claims.
4. **Identify available tools** for the detected domain (see `references/domain-routing.md`).

If the user doesn't specify depth, default to `standard`. Upgrade to `deep` if early results reveal significant disagreement or complexity.

5. **Classify the question mode** — investigative or generative:

| Signal | Mode | Route |
|--------|------|-------|
| "Is X true?", "What caused X?", "Verify X", fact-check | **Investigative** | Continue to Phase 2 (decompose → triangulate → synthesize) |
| "What's the best X?", "How should we X?", "What are the options for X?", "Design X", "Optimize X" | **Generative** | Route to `agentic-researcher` |
| "What should I buy?", "best <product> for <need/budget>", purchase comparison, "is this product/store legit?" | **Consumer purchase** | Route to `emptor` (consumer-research domain) — runs requirements elicitation, trusted-source scanning, and verification before recommending |

**Generative questions** require constructing and comparing candidate solutions rather than verifying existing claims. When a generative question is detected, pass the restated question, detected domain, depth mode, and user constraints to `agentic-researcher` and present its output in Phase 6 format.

If unsure, default to investigative. If early decomposition reveals the question is actually generative (most "claims" are design choices rather than verifiable assertions), pivot to `agentic-researcher` at that point.

6. **Pre-check vault (optional)** — if the user has a connected Obsidian vault, before starting Phase 2 decomposition, call `vault-reader` to surface any prior verified investigation. Run `operation: text-search pattern: <key-terms-from-restated-question>` and/or `operation: filter where: {tags: [<topic>]}` against the default folder scope. Surface results with `confidence: likely` or `confidence: confirmed` to the user. If the user confirms the prior investigation is sufficient, skip Phase 2 and cite the surfaced note(s) in Phase 6; otherwise proceed to Phase 2. Treat `Matched: 0` as a finding ("no prior coverage in vault"), not an error.

### Phase 2 — Decompose

Route to `claim-decomposer` to break the question into atomic verifiable claims.

Pass the decomposer:
- The restated question from Phase 1
- The detected domain (affects decomposition strategy)
- Any constraints the user specified

Receive back:
- A numbered list of atomic claims
- Each claim classified by type (factual, causal, comparative, predictive, etc.)
- Each claim tagged with its domain (may differ from the overall question domain)
- Each claim ranked by priority: critical / supporting / contextual
- Hidden assumptions surfaced as separate claims
- A dependency graph with recommended investigation order
- Suggested verification strategy per claim

Review the decomposition. If any atomic claim is still compound, send it back for further decomposition.

### Phase 3 — Investigate

For each atomic claim from Phase 2, route to `source-triangulator`.

**Dependency-driven execution order:**

Use the decomposer's dependency graph and investigation order to schedule claims:

1. **Read the dependency graph.** Identify which claims are independent (can run in parallel) and which have upstream dependencies (must wait for their premise to be verified first).
2. **Execute in waves.** Follow the decomposer's recommended investigation order:
   - Wave 1: All independent claims (parallel)
   - Wave 2: Claims that depend on Wave 1 results (sequential — only start after their premise is resolved)
   - Wave 3+: Continue until all claims are investigated
3. **Propagate upstream results.** When passing a dependent claim to the triangulator, include the confidence result of its upstream claim. If a premise was tagged Speculative or Contested, the triangulator should note this — the dependent claim's confidence ceiling is capped by its weakest upstream dependency.
4. **Priority-based depth allocation.** When claim count is high (10+), allocate depth by priority:
   - Critical claims: Full depth mode
   - Supporting claims: One level shallower (deep → standard, standard → quick)
   - Contextual claims: quick mode unless the user requests otherwise

Pass the triangulator:
- The atomic claim
- The claim type (factual, causal, comparative, etc. — from decomposer)
- The claim's domain and suggested tool chain (from decomposer, may differ per claim)
- The depth mode (adjusted by priority if claim count is high)
- The claim's priority (critical / supporting / contextual)
- Upstream dependency results, if any (claim ID, confidence tag, key finding)

Receive back:
- Evidence bundle: sources found, their quality assessments, agreement/disagreement map
- A preliminary confidence tag (will be finalized in Phase 4)
- Any new questions or claims that emerged during investigation

If investigation reveals the original question was wrong or incomplete, surface this to the user rather than silently adjusting scope.

**Paywall handling (NEW):** If `source-triangulator` reports any source as paywalled or otherwise inaccessible AND the claim is `critical` priority, route to `paywall-strategist` BEFORE tagging the source as Unverifiable. The strategist tries open-access mirrors, extracts available abstracts/methods, and surfaces adjacent open-access work. Only after the strategist returns `truly_unverifiable` does the gap get logged.

**Bias/funding enrichment (NEW):** After source-triangulator returns the evidence bundle for any `critical` claim, route the bundle to `bias-and-funding-tracer`. It enriches each source with funding, COI, author affiliations, and an independence score, then flags cross-source dependencies (e.g., 3 "independent" sources sharing a funder). If the effectively-independent source count drops below the threshold for the preliminary confidence tier, evidence-synthesizer must use the lower count when finalizing the tag in Phase 4.

### Phase 4 — Synthesize

Route all evidence bundles to `evidence-synthesizer`.

Pass the synthesizer:
- All evidence bundles from Phase 3
- The original question and atomic claim list (with dependency graph and priority tags)
- The depth mode selected in Phase 1

The synthesizer will read `../spelunker/references/confidence-framework.md` directly to apply confidence criteria.

Receive back:
- A structured research brief with confidence-tagged findings
- An evidence map showing claim → evidence → source chains
- A gaps and limitations section
- A confidence summary

### Phase 5 — Self-Check (Adversarial Pass)

**Skip this phase ONLY in `quick` mode.**

After synthesis, actively search for evidence that contradicts the emerging conclusion:

1. **Select claims for adversarial checking.** Prioritize using the claim priority tags from the decomposer:
   - ALL critical claims tagged Confirmed or Likely get adversarial checked.
   - Supporting claims only if they prop up a critical claim that was borderline.
   - In `standard` mode: check top 2-3 critical claims. In `deep` mode: check all critical + top supporting claims.
2. Search specifically for counterevidence: "problems with X", "X debunked", "criticism of X", "X is wrong".
3. For biomedical claims, search for negative trial results, retracted studies, or conflicting meta-analyses.
4. If counterevidence is found:
   - Downgrade confidence tags as warranted
   - Add the contradicting sources to the evidence map
   - Upgrade claims from Likely to Contested if the counterevidence is credible
5. If no counterevidence is found, note this explicitly: "Adversarial search conducted — no credible counterevidence found."

**Backpropagation — cascade downgrades through dependencies:**

After all adversarial checks are complete, walk the dependency graph:

1. For every claim that was downgraded in this phase, find all claims that depend on it (from the decomposer's dependency graph).
2. Apply the confidence ceiling rule: a dependent claim's confidence cannot exceed its weakest upstream dependency. If Claim A was downgraded from Confirmed → Contested, and Claim C depends on A, then C must be re-evaluated — its confidence drops to at most Contested.
3. Continue cascading until no further downgrades propagate.
4. Re-run the synthesizer's overall confidence assessment with the updated tags.
5. Document every cascade: "Claim C downgraded from Likely → Contested because its upstream Claim A was downgraded during adversarial check."

The self-check is NOT optional in `standard` and `deep` modes. It is what makes Spelunker trustworthy.

**Active disconfirmation via `counterfactual-prober` (NEW):**

After the existing passive adversarial search and BEFORE backpropagation, route to `counterfactual-prober` for active disconfirmation:

- In `deep` mode: probe ALL critical claims still tagged Confirmed or Likely, plus the top 2 supporting claims by priority.
- In `standard` mode: probe the single highest-priority critical claim still tagged Confirmed or Likely.
- In `quick` mode: skip (consistent with skipping all of Phase 5).

The prober generates "if this claim were false, what should we observe?" predictions and searches for those signatures. Confidence downgrades from the prober feed into the same backpropagation cascade that handles the passive adversarial pass — process them in the same wave.

### Phase 6 — Present

Deliver the final research brief to the user. The output format is defined in `evidence-synthesizer` but the orchestrator adds:

**Output contract (graded):** Emit eight standalone UPPERCASE section headers in this order — not `##` variants: RESEARCH BRIEF → KEY FINDINGS → DETAILED FINDINGS → EVIDENCE MAP → GAPS & LIMITATIONS → CONFIDENCE SUMMARY → SOURCES → NEXT STEPS. RESEARCH BRIEF: include a standalone `CORE CLAIM CONFIDENCE: <Tag>` line (Tag ∈ Confirmed | Likely | Speculative | Contested | Unverifiable) stating the overall confidence on the central claim. KEY/DETAILED FINDINGS: `[N]` or `[no source]` on every empirical claim. DETAILED: `Confidence: [Tag] because …` (word *because* required). GAPS: ≥1 `-` bullet. CONFIDENCE SUMMARY: include Confirmed, Likely, Speculative, Contested, Unverifiable. SOURCES: `1.` numbered, `Tier N`, `Used for:`.

**RESEARCH BRIEF skeleton (copy-paste; mandatory placement):** The `CORE CLAIM CONFIDENCE` line must appear inside RESEARCH BRIEF — immediately as the second line after the section title (not buried in KEY FINDINGS). Example:

```
RESEARCH BRIEF
CORE CLAIM CONFIDENCE: Contested
Brief ID: SPK-YYYYMMDD-<slug>
<One-paragraph bottom line on the central claim, with [1] citations as needed.>
```

See `references/quick-reference.md` for a minimal fully-compliant synthetic exemplar.

**Refuted claims (when evidence shows the central claim is false):** Spelunker has no `Refuted` tag. When the investigation concludes the claim does **not** hold, the CORE line must still appear and must **not** use `Confirmed` or `Likely`. Prefer `Contested` or `Unverifiable` on the CORE line **and** explicit refutation language in the RESEARCH BRIEF and DETAILED `because`-clauses (e.g. "the claim is false", "not supported", "debunked", "no credible evidence"). `Speculative` alone is **insufficient** when the brief concludes the claim is false — that reads as hedging, not refutation.

- **Brief ID**: Generate a short stable identifier for this brief in the form `SPK-YYYYMMDD-<6-char-slug>` (e.g., `SPK-20260513-pasiv9`). Include it in the brief header. The brief ID is the handle for the calibration ledger — users resolve claims later via `/calibrate <brief_id> <claim_id> <true|false|partial>`.
- **Meta-commentary**: How confident is the overall investigation? Did tool limitations affect coverage?
- **Next steps**: If the user wants to go deeper, what specific questions would be most productive?
- **Upgrade paths**: For Speculative and Unverifiable claims, what would be needed to resolve them?

#### Pre-flight check (REQUIRED before delivery)

Before returning the brief to the user, verify the evidence-synthesizer ran its Step 5b citation audit. The orchestrator MUST reject and return to Phase 4 if:

1. Any paragraph in Key Findings or Detailed Findings contains an empirical claim without an inline `[N]` marker (or explicit `[no source]` annotation on Speculative claims).
2. Any confidence tag is missing a because-clause.
3. The SOURCES section is bullet-formatted instead of a numbered list, or any entry is missing its date/tier/used-for.
4. Citation numbers don't match between body and SOURCES (orphan markers or unused entries).

5. KEY FINDINGS must include `[N]` or `[no source]` (synthesis-templates.md omits them—do not copy template without markers).
6. Paste the Feedback prompt footer **verbatim** (exact backticks, `/feedback spelunker <1-5> [optional notes]`, `Brief ID: SPK-... · Calibrate later:` on one line).
7. CONFIDENCE SUMMARY must name Confirmed, Likely, Speculative, Contested, and Unverifiable.
8. RESEARCH BRIEF must include a standalone `CORE CLAIM CONFIDENCE: <Tag>` line as the **second line** of that section (immediately under `RESEARCH BRIEF`, before Brief ID or body text). Tag ∈ Confirmed | Likely | Speculative | Contested | Unverifiable.
9. If check 8 fails, **regenerate the full brief once** (return to Phase 4 synthesis, re-run Step 5b citation audit, re-run this pre-flight). Do not deliver until the CORE line is present. A second failure: deliver only after fixing the CORE line in-place — still include all eight sections.
10. For refuted central claims: CORE tag must not be Confirmed/Likely; RESEARCH BRIEF or DETAILED must contain explicit refutation language (see Refuted claims above). Reject delivery if the brief affirms a claim the evidence refutes.


This pre-flight is non-optional. The Guiding Principles ("Never present speculation as fact", "Trace to primary sources") are only enforceable if the brief is auditable. A brief that reads authoritative but cannot be traced to sources violates the contract.

#### Feedback prompt (REQUIRED at end of brief)

After the brief, append a single-line feedback prompt:

```
─────────────────────────────────────
Was this brief useful? Reply `/feedback spelunker <1-5> [optional notes]` to log.
Brief ID: SPK-YYYYMMDD-<slug> · Calibrate later: `/calibrate <brief_id> <claim_id> <true|false|partial>`
```

This populates `data/feedback.jsonl` (currently empty for spelunker) and the calibration ledger. Without this prompt, the feedback loop closes silently.

### Translation to other formats (optional)

If the user wants the brief in a non-default format (executive memo, VC pitch bullets, tweet thread, decision memo), route the completed brief to `synthesis-translator` with the desired target format. The translator preserves citations and confidence tags, refuses to upgrade tags during compression, and surfaces what was cut. Callable standalone on any existing brief in `research/` — does not require a fresh Spelunker run.

### Persistence (optional)

If the user wants this research brief persisted to their Obsidian vault, call `vault-writer` (`infrastructure/vault-writer`) with the synthesis as a `type: note` artifact in `Notes/<slug>.md`, the full brief as a `Raw/<slug>-research-brief-<date>.md` companion source (set `companion_source_path`), and `index_entry: true` if the topic is new. vault-writer enforces the vault's schema and appends `log.md`. The integrity report it returns will list any unresolved wikilinks the caller should address (either by linking to existing notes or by leaving as known skill-library refs).

## Depth Mode Selection Guide

| Signal | Mode | Rationale |
|--------|------|-----------|
| "Quick question", "just curious", single-fact lookup | `quick` | Low stakes, well-trodden ground |
| "Research this", "what does the evidence say", "help me understand" | `standard` | Genuine inquiry, deserves triangulation |
| "I need to be sure", "this is for a decision", "comprehensive analysis" | `deep` | High stakes, must be thorough |
| Early results show contradictions | Upgrade to `deep` | Contested territory requires full adversarial pass |
| Topic is politically or commercially charged | Upgrade to `deep` | Higher risk of biased sources |

## Cross-Domain Integration

### Agentic Researcher (Generative Mode)

When a question is generative rather than investigative (see Phase 1, step 5), the spelunker routes to `agentic-researcher` which uses an evolutionary generate → evaluate → select → mutate loop to construct and refine candidate solutions. The agentic-researcher shares the spelunker's confidence framework and calls source-triangulator for evidence gathering. Its output (an Agentic Research Brief with ranked recommendations and trade-off maps) is presented using Phase 6 formatting.

### Internal Sub-Skills (for reference)

The Spelunker suite is composed of these directly-orchestrated skills:

| Phase | Skill | Role |
|-------|-------|------|
| 2 | `claim-decomposer` | Atomic-claim extraction with dependency graph |
| 3 | `source-triangulator` | Per-claim evidence gathering, independence verification |
| 3 | `bias-and-funding-tracer` | Per-source funding/COI enrichment, cross-source independence flags |
| 3 (Reentry L1) | `paywall-strategist` | Open-access mirror search before declaring a source unverifiable |
| 4 | `evidence-synthesizer` | Confidence-tagged brief assembly with citation discipline |
| 5 | `counterfactual-prober` | Active disconfirmation — search for signatures the claim would leave if false |
| 6 (optional) | `synthesis-translator` | Convert the brief to memo / pitch / thread / decision formats |
| Generative branch | `agentic-researcher` | Evolutionary candidate generation for "what's the best X?" questions |

### External Integration

Spelunker is available as a research tool for other skill domains:

- **Skill Infrastructure**: `skill-scaffold` invokes Spelunker to research a domain before building skills in it. This ensures new skills are grounded in real knowledge, not assumptions.
- **Game Theory**: Spelunker can investigate real-world strategic situations to gather empirical data before formalization.
- **Data Science**: Spelunker can research methodological best practices before analysis.
- **Worldbuilding**: Spelunker can research real-world analogs to ground fictional systems in reality.

When invoked by another skill, Spelunker returns structured findings that the calling skill can incorporate.

## Failure Recovery

### Immediate Responses

| Failure | Response | Reentry Point |
|---------|----------|---------------|
| No sources found for a claim | Tag as Unverifiable. State what was searched. | → Reentry Protocol below |
| All sources are low-quality | Tag as Speculative. Note the evidence quality gap. | → Reentry Protocol below |
| Sources contradict each other irreconcilably | Tag as Contested. Present both sides with evidence quality comparison. Do NOT pick a winner. | No reentry needed — Contested is a valid outcome |
| Tool access fails (rate limit, paywall, timeout) | Note the failure in Gaps. Explain what information might be behind the barrier. Continue with available sources. | → Reentry Protocol if the claim is critical |
| Question is too broad to research meaningfully | Return to Phase 1. Ask the user to narrow scope. Suggest specific sub-questions. | → Phase 1 |
| Decomposition produces 15+ atomic claims | Ask the user to prioritize. Investigate the top claims at full depth, remainder at `quick` depth. | → Phase 3 with prioritized subset |

### Reentry Protocol

When a critical claim cannot be verified on the first pass, do NOT immediately give up. Apply escalation strategies before tagging as Unverifiable:

**Level 1 — Rephrase and retry (automatic):**
- Reformulate the search query using different terminology, synonyms, or adjacent concepts
- Try searching for the claim's negation (sometimes you find evidence for X by searching for "not X")
- Switch to a different search tool (e.g., WebSearch → PubMed, or WebSearch → Google Drive)
- Reentry point: Phase 3, same claim, new search strategy

**Level 2 — Decompose further (automatic):**
- The claim may be too compound. Send it back to claim-decomposer for further decomposition
- A claim like "X is effective" might need to become "X produces effect Y" + "Effect Y is the relevant outcome"
- The new sub-claims inherit the parent claim's priority and replace it in the dependency graph. Any claims that depended on the parent now depend on all the sub-claims.
- Reentry point: Phase 2 (decompose the stuck claim), then Phase 3 with the sub-claims

**Level 3 — Depth upgrade (requires user confirmation):**
- Upgrade the claim's depth mode (quick → standard → deep)
- This adds lateral queries, domain-specific searches, and adversarial queries that may surface evidence missed at lower depth
- Tell the user: "Critical claim [X] could not be verified at [current depth]. Upgrading to [deeper level] for more thorough search."
- Reentry point: Phase 3, same claim, higher depth

**Level 4 — User assist (requires user input):**
- Ask the user for help: "I couldn't verify [claim]. Do you have a specific source in mind? A domain expert to consult? A database I don't have access to?"
- This is the last resort before tagging Unverifiable
- Reentry point: Phase 3 with user-provided leads

**When to stop:** Tag as Unverifiable after exhausting Levels 1-2 for supporting/contextual claims, or Levels 1-4 for critical claims. Always document which levels were attempted.

## Scope Boundaries

**Spelunker handles:** Investigating questions, verifying claims, researching topics, finding evidence, synthesizing findings with confidence assessments.

**Spelunker does NOT:**
- Make decisions for the user (it presents evidence, the user decides)
- Provide medical, legal, or financial advice (it reports what sources say, with appropriate caveats)
- Access paywalled or login-required content (it reports this as a limitation)
- Guarantee truth (it reports confidence levels with auditable criteria)
- Replace domain experts (it surfaces information for expert interpretation)