{
  "schema_version": 2,
  "kind": "shortening-method",
  "format": "agent-skill",
  "id": "research-request",
  "name": "Research request",
  "category": "Work",
  "summary": "Condense a research brief into the decision, questions, scope, and required evidence.",
  "use_cases": [
    "Research intake",
    "Internal study briefs",
    "Analyst requests"
  ],
  "word_count": 147,
  "url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/",
  "instructions_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/SKILL.md",
  "skill_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/SKILL.md",
  "json_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/llms.txt",
  "plain_text_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/prompt.txt",
  "license": "MIT",
  "sources_url": "https://sho.rten.it/sources/#research-request",
  "skill_name": "research-request",
  "skill_description": "Condense a research brief into the decision, questions, scope, and required evidence. Use for Research intake, Internal study briefs, Analyst requests.",
  "agents_md_url": "https://sho.rten.it/methods/research-request/AGENTS.md",
  "sources": [],
  "instructions": "Condense the supplied research request into a brief someone can execute without guessing its purpose. Use this for defining a research task, not for performing research or writing its findings.\n\nLead with the decision the research will inform. Keep the questions that distinguish the available options. Preserve the audience or population, relevant period, geographic scope, exclusions, existing evidence, and access constraints. Separate a required method from a method merely suggested in discussion.\n\nRetain the expected deliverable, its recipient, deadline, and the standard of evidence stated in the request. Flag missing decision-critical information rather than inventing a sample size, budget, recruitment permission, or research result.\n\nUse short sections for Decision, Questions, Scope, and Delivery. Merge duplicate questions only when they ask for the same evidence. Remove background history that does not affect the work. Keep uncertainty and known gaps visible, and do not turn assumptions into established facts.",
  "example": {
    "before": "The membership team must decide whether to keep the welcome call for new members or replace it with a live group session. Before deciding, they want to understand which onboarding questions remain unanswered after the welcome call and whether people who work evenings can attend a daytime group session. The request concerns members who joined the Manchester branch in the past three months; other branches and former members are out of scope. We already have anonymized welcome-call notes for 18 members. The research should use those notes, and interviews were suggested as a possible follow-up, but recruitment has not been approved. The team does not know whether the notes include members who work evenings. Researcher Noor should send membership lead Ada a two-page evidence brief by 6 December, separating observed findings from assumptions. The group has debated the welcome format at several meetings.",
    "after": "Decision: Keep the welcome call or replace it with a live group session.\n\nQuestions: Which onboarding questions remain unanswered after calls? Can evening workers attend a daytime group session?\n\nScope: Manchester members who joined in the past three months; exclude other branches and former members. Use anonymized call notes for 18 members. Evening-worker coverage is unknown. Follow-up interviews are suggested; recruitment is unapproved.\n\nDelivery: Noor sends Ada a two-page evidence brief by 6 December. Separate findings from assumptions.",
    "context": "Membership onboarding research intake",
    "must_preserve": [
      "Call versus group decision",
      "Unanswered questions and evening-worker daytime availability",
      "Manchester recent three months, other branches/former members excluded",
      "18 anonymized call notes required; evening-worker coverage unknown",
      "Interviews optional suggestion, no recruitment approval",
      "Noor to Ada, two-page evidence brief, 6 December, findings distinct assumptions"
    ],
    "omitted": [
      "Repeated prior meeting debates"
    ],
    "kind": "illustrative"
  }
}