hermes-skills/deep-web-research/SKILL.md

name, description, version, author

name	description	version	author
deep-web-research	Exhaustive deep web research — five-move flow, external findings ledger, mechanical saturation check, disconfirmation, condensation from disk. Opt-in skill for the research profile.	1.0.0	Hermes Agent

Deep Web Research

Loaded explicitly via -s deep-web-research. Not loaded during normal interactive use of the research profile. This skill overrides default behavior to enforce exhaustive research methodology.

Core Rules (Always in Effect)

These persist across all turns — they are in the skill, not in fading context:

• Confined to /tmp. All file writes go to /tmp/. Never write outside /tmp.
• No self-provisioning. Never install software. No pip, npm, apt, docker, or any package manager. Use only what's already configured.
• No repeat searches. If you catch yourself searching the same thing twice, stop. That sub-question is saturated.
• Blacklist after 3 failures. If a URL returns an error 3 times, blacklist it and move on. Do not retry indefinitely.
• Local and free only. No internet-based paid services, no SaaS APIs with billing, no metered endpoints. Use any tool already configured that fits this rule.

Architecture: External Findings Ledger

At 200 turns, early findings scroll out of context. The ledger is the fix.

Path: /tmp/research-<session-id>.md

Schema per finding:

## Finding #<N>: <short label>
- Sub-Question: <which sub-question this belongs to>
- Claim: <the factual claim>
- Source: <URL> — <credibility tier: primary|secondary|aggregator|social>
- Confirmed by: <URL> (or "single-sourced")
- Date: <YYYY-MM-DD of the information, not of the search>
- Confidence: confirmed | likely | single-sourced | disputed
- Notes: <contradictions, caveats, context>

Dedup rule: Before writing a new finding, scan the ledger for an existing finding with the same claim. If found, add the new source to "Confirmed by" instead of creating a duplicate. Duplicate findings defeat the saturation check.

Sub-question tagging: Every finding must reference which sub-question it belongs to. This enables the phase gate to verify coverage and the condensation phase to group findings by topic.

Five-Move Research Flow

Move 1: Decompose

Break the question into sub-questions. Write them to the ledger with time classifications. This makes "multiple angles" principled instead of random.

## Sub-Questions
1. <sub-question text> [time: week|month|year|none]
2. <sub-question text> [time: week|month|year|none]

The time classification lives on disk, not in fading context. Move 3 reads it back when applying time filters per sub-question.

Time classification guide:

• Current-state (releases, prices, news, versions, events): week or month
• Established-knowledge (how something works, architecture, algorithms, history): none or year

Move 2: Landscape Pass

Shallow-but-broad sweep. For each sub-question, 1-2 searches, read top 1-2 results. Extract only: key sources, terms of art, where disagreement lives, major players. No deep-diving yet. Append landscape notes to the ledger.

Move 3: Deep-Dive per Sub-Question

For each sub-question:

• Search from 3+ angles with different categories and framings. Use mcp_searxng_searxng_web_search. Apply the time filter from the ledger.
• Read full pages (5-10 per sub-question) via mcp_searxng_web_url_read. Snippets are pointers, not sources.
• Follow citation trails: if a page cites a study/paper/dataset, go read that source. Depth-first — one trail at a time, to its end, then the next.
• Extract structured data: tables, numbers, dates, versions, names.
• Assign credibility tier at capture time (not post-hoc in output).
• Cross-reference: every claim needs 2+ independent sources.
• Use browser tools (Playwright) when static extraction fails on JS-heavy pages.
• Append every finding to the ledger.

Citation trail stop conditions:

• Reached primary source (original paper, official docs, raw data)
• Dead end (paywall, 404, requires login)
• Circular reference (already read this source)

Move 4: Disconfirmation Pass

Actively try to falsify each key claim:

• Search for "[claim] wrong", "[claim] criticism", "[claim] outdated"
• Check dates: is a 2024 source being presented as current?
• Look for contradicting evidence
• Append disconfirmation findings to the ledger

This is distinct from cross-referencing. Cross-reference confirms agreement. Disconfirmation actively hunts for disagreement.

Move 5: Condensation

Read the full ledger from disk. Read the phase gate file. If any box is unchecked, do NOT condense — go back and complete that item.

Synthesize:

• Lead with the answer. No process narrative.
• Evidence-backed. Every claim tied to a source from the ledger.
• Concrete. Numbers, dates, names, specifics.
• Uncertainty explicit. "X confirmed by A and B. Y single-sourced from C. Z unresolved — D and E conflict."
• Sources section: numbered list with URLs and credibility tiers.

Guardrails

Saturation Check (Mechanical)

Every 3-4 searches, run this command — do not self-assess:

grep -c "^## Finding #" /tmp/research-<sid>.md

Compare to the previous count. If zero new findings in the last 3 searches, that sub-question is saturated. Move to the next. This is a measurable fact, not a vibe.

Phase Gate File

The phase gate is a file at /tmp/research-<sid>-gate.md. Write it and read it back — it is not a mental checklist. Before moving to Move 5, read the gate file. If any box is unchecked, do NOT condense. Go back and complete that item.

# Phase Gate
- [ ] All sub-questions have findings in the ledger
- [ ] Disconfirmation pass completed for key claims
- [ ] OR: saturation condition fired (no new findings in last 3 searches)
- [ ] OR: turn ceiling approaching (wrap up what you have)

Update this file as you progress.

Turn Ceiling

200 turns is a safety net, not a target. Hitting the ceiling is a failure to condense, not the normal path. If the ceiling is hit, deliver partial findings with a note on what's missing.

Tool Policy

One rule: local and free only. Use any tool already configured on the research profile that fits this rule. No internet-based paid services, no SaaS APIs with billing, no metered endpoints. You determine what fits — you are not given a list of allowed or disallowed tools.

No self-provisioning. Never install, pull, or spin up new tools at runtime.

Tools That Would Have Helped

At the end of the response (after Sources), add a section if any limitations were hit:

Tools that would have improved this research:
- <tool name>: <what it would have enabled>
None: all sources were accessible with available tools.

This is informational only. Do your best with what's available and note what could have been better. Do not stop or block on tool gaps.