research-verify

Research Verify

Verify existing research by challenging claims against independent primary sources. This is NOT "go deeper" - it's adversarial validation. The goal is to confirm or refute what the research already says.

Project Root

Use $CRAFT_PROJECT_ROOT (set at session start) as the base path for all .craft/ references. If not set, resolve by walking up from PWD to find the nearest .craft/.global-state.

Set PROJECT to ${CRAFT_PROJECT_ROOT:-.}.

Flow

Step 1: Select Topic

If args contain a topic slug that matches a folder in $PROJECT/.craft/research/: -> Use that topic. Jump to Step 2.

If no args or no match: Use Glob with pattern $PROJECT/.craft/research/*/_plan.md to find all topics.

For each, use Read with limit: 15 to get frontmatter. Only show topics with status: complete.

Use AskUserQuestion to pick a topic.

Step 2: Extract Findings

Read the topic's _plan.md in full.

Use Glob to find all branch files: $PROJECT/.craft/research/{topic-slug}/[0-9]*.md

For each branch file, use Read to extract:

• All ### Finding N: {title} entries
• Their **Confidence:** level (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
• Their **Sources:** references

Build a findings list:

| # | Branch | Finding | Confidence | Sources |
|---|--------|---------|------------|---------|
| 1 | 02-claude-code-ecosystem | PostToolUse payload uses tool_response not tool_output | HIGH | [1][2] |
| 2 | 02-claude-code-ecosystem | AskUserQuestion answers live in tool_input | HIGH | [1][2][3] |
| 3 | 01-multi-agent-frameworks | OpenHands dominates at 70.9K stars | MEDIUM | [1] |
...

Also check for existing verification-*.md files - mark already-verified findings so the user doesn't re-verify them.

Step 3: Choose Verification Mode

Present the findings table to the user, then ask how they want to verify.

Use AskUserQuestion:

question: "How should I verify these {N} findings?"
header: "Verification Mode"
options:
  - label: "Source verification"
    description: "Check claims against independent primary sources (verifier agents)"
  - label: "Practitioner review"
    description: "Challenge claims from practical experience - catches 'true in docs, wrong in practice'"
  - label: "Both passes"
    description: "Source verification first, then practitioner review on the results"
  - label: "Cancel"
    description: "Back out"