research-swarm

/research-swarm — an argument map for any hypothesis (a swarm of research agents)

🧒 When reporting to a non-technical operator: end with a child-simple "In plain words" recap in their language. ⚖️ Doctrine: this skill IS the operational arm of protocol-epistemic-neutrality-fringe-research. NEVER judge or mock the hypothesis. Consensus ≠ truth. Build a map of arguments + confidence — an investigation, not a verdict. Bounded by operating-agreement safety invariants (no illegal/harm/bypass/fraud).

When to use

The operator hands a hypothesis — frontier science (antigravity, perpetual motion, anomalous materials, radical longevity, models of consciousness/time), an unusual business model (DAO/network states, no-employee AI co, token labor markets), or a controversial/stigmatized vertical (adult, gaming, gambling). Goal: a balanced, grounded argument map, not a yes/no.

The 5 lenses (run as a parallel swarm)

1. Consensus — steelman the current mainstream/established view. What does well-replicated science / the market actually hold, and why.
2. Skeptic — strongest arguments AGAINST. Where the idea breaks, hidden assumptions, falsification points, known failure modes.
3. Frontier — strongest arguments FOR. Steelman the believer: what would have to be true, adjacent emerging evidence, why it's not obviously impossible.
4. Historian — precedents and base rates. Ideas once dismissed then vindicated (and once hyped then debunked); the historical analog for THIS idea.
5. Experimental-Design — what measurement/experiment would confirm or refute, the cheapest decisive test, what data to gather first.

Each lens does light, targeted web grounding (WebSearch/WebFetch) — claims should be evidenced, not just model priors — but stays token-aware. The synthesis NEVER returns a verdict; it returns a confidence tier + open questions.

Control node — Verifier-Calibrator (added 2026-06-15, via Alpha R+DR)

After synthesis, one Verifier-Calibrator node runs (the swarm's acceptance function, not another opinion). It (1) audits the strongest for/against claims — supported / partial / unsupported, (2) re-derives the confidence tier from evidence (support density + cross-lens agreement), not vibe, lowering tiers that rest on unsupported or single-lens claims, and (3) may abstain: the new tier insufficient is a first-class honest answer when evidence is too thin to place the idea on the established→fringe axis. The calibrated tier + claim audit + flags surface in the note and dashboard. This is the DR-recommended control plane over the 5-lens content plane (gaps: no verifier / qualitative-not-calibrated tiers / no abstain lane). Decision: vault 02-Decisions\decision-research-swarm-v2-upgrade.