afc:research

/afc:research — Technical Research

Investigates technical questions and summarizes conclusions. Results are persisted to .claude/afc/memory/research/{topic}.md.

Arguments

• $ARGUMENTS — (required) research topic (e.g., "Zustand v5 migration", "WebCodecs API comparison")

Execution Steps

1. Analyze Topic

Extract from $ARGUMENTS:

• Core question: What do we need to know?
• Context: Why is it needed? (relevance to the current project)
• Scope: Depth vs breadth (specific library comparison? general technology trends?)

2. Check Existing Research

Check .claude/afc/memory/research/ directory for related prior research:

• If found: load existing content and decide whether an update is needed
• If not found: proceed with new research

3. Gather Information

Use Agent Teams — run independent investigations in parallel:

Task("WebSearch: {topic} official docs", subagent_type: "general-purpose")
Task("Codebase: analyze current usage patterns", subagent_type: "general-purpose")

Source priority:

1. Official documentation (WebSearch/WebFetch)
2. Codebase (existing patterns in the current project)
3. Community (GitHub Issues, blogs)

3.5. Reconcile Findings

After parallel agents return, the orchestrator checks for conflicts between sources:

1. Compare codebase agent findings (current usage patterns) against web agent findings (official docs, latest versions)
2. If a codebase pattern conflicts with official documentation (e.g., deprecated API, changed behavior in newer version):
   • Flag the conflict explicitly in Findings rather than silently adopting one source
   • Note: "Current codebase uses {pattern} but official docs recommend {alternative} since {version/date}"
3. If no conflicts → proceed to Summarize

4. Summarize Conclusions

# Research: {topic}

> Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
> Related feature: {related feature or "general"}

## Core Question
{what we needed to know}

## Findings

### {subtopic 1}
{content}
**Source**: {URL} (verified {date})

### {subtopic 2}
{content}

## Option Comparison (if applicable)
| Criterion | {OptionA} | {OptionB} | {OptionC} |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| {criterion1} | {evaluation} | {evaluation} | {evaluation} |
| {criterion2} | {evaluation} | {evaluation} | {evaluation} |

## Conclusion
**Recommendation**: {choice or conclusion}
**Rationale**: {key reason}
**Caveats**: {pitfalls or constraints}

## Project Application
{how this can be applied in the current project}