deep-research

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Deep Research

深度研究

Systematic methodology for conducting exhaustive, accurate research using all available tools. Prioritizes correctness over speed.

借助所有可用工具开展详尽、准确研究的系统化方法论，优先保证正确性而非速度。

Core Principles

核心原则

Multiple sources required — Never rely on a single source for important claims
Cross-reference everything — Verify facts appear consistently across independent sources
Citation mandatory — Every claim must have a source; no unsourced assertions
Acknowledge uncertainty — When sources conflict or are weak, say so explicitly
Prefer primary sources — Official docs > blog posts > forum answers > AI-generated content

需多来源佐证 —— 重要主张绝不能仅依赖单一来源
全面交叉验证 —— 核实事实在独立来源间的一致性
强制添加引用 —— 所有主张必须附带来源，禁止无来源断言
明确标注不确定性 —— 当来源存在冲突或可信度较低时，需明确说明
优先使用一手来源 —— 官方文档 > 博客文章 > 论坛回答 > AI生成内容

Available Research Tools

可用研究工具

Use these tools in combination based on the research topic:

Tool	Best For	Limitations
WebSearch	Current events, recent information, broad topic discovery	Results may be outdated, SEO-influenced
WebFetch	Reading specific URLs, extracting detailed content	Requires known URL
Playwright browser	Interactive sites, paywalled content (if logged in), complex navigation	Slower, requires more tokens
Context7/MCP docs	Library/framework documentation	Only indexed libraries
OpenAI docs MCP	OpenAI API specifics	OpenAI only
Grep/Glob/Read	Codebase research, finding implementations	Local files only

根据研究主题组合使用以下工具：

工具	适用场景	局限性
WebSearch	时事资讯、近期信息、宽泛主题探索	结果可能过时，受SEO影响
WebFetch	读取特定URL、提取详细内容	需要已知URL
Playwright browser	交互式网站、付费内容（已登录时）、复杂导航	速度较慢，消耗更多token
Context7/MCP docs	库/框架文档	仅支持已索引的库
OpenAI docs MCP	OpenAI API细节	仅针对OpenAI
Grep/Glob/Read	代码库研究、查找实现细节	仅支持本地文件

Research Workflow

研究工作流

Phase 1: Scope Definition

阶段1：范围界定

Before researching, clarify:

Core question — What specific question(s) need answering?
Required depth — Surface overview or exhaustive deep-dive?
Recency requirements — Is timeliness critical? (API versions, current events, etc.)
Authoritative sources — What would count as a definitive answer?

Ask clarifying questions if scope is ambiguous. Use AskUserQuestion for structured choices when multiple research directions are possible.

开始研究前，需明确：

核心问题 —— 需要回答哪些具体问题？
所需深度 —— 表面概述还是详尽深入研究？
时效性要求 —— 及时性是否关键？（如API版本、时事等）
权威来源标准 —— 什么可被视为确定性答案？

若范围模糊，需提出澄清问题。当存在多个研究方向时，使用AskUserQuestion获取结构化选择。

Phase 2: Source Discovery

阶段2：来源挖掘

Cast a wide net to find relevant sources:

1. WebSearch with multiple query variations
   - Try 3-5 different phrasings of the core question
   - Include technical terms AND plain language
   - Search for "[topic] official documentation"
   - Search for "[topic] research paper" or "[topic] study"

2. Identify authoritative sources from results
   - Official documentation sites
   - Academic papers / research institutions
   - Industry standards bodies
   - Recognized experts in the field

3. Check specialized tools
   - Context7 for library/framework docs
   - OpenAI docs MCP for OpenAI-specific topics
   - GitHub/codebase for implementation details

Source discovery heuristics:

Government and academic domains (.gov, .edu, .ac.uk) tend toward accuracy
Official project documentation is authoritative for that project
Wikipedia is a starting point, not an endpoint — follow its citations
Stack Overflow answers need verification; check votes and dates
Be skeptical of content farms and SEO-optimized listicles

广泛搜罗相关来源：

1. 使用多种查询变体进行WebSearch
   - 尝试3-5种核心问题的不同表述
   - 同时包含技术术语和通俗语言
   - 搜索“[主题] official documentation”
   - 搜索“[主题] research paper”或“[主题] study”

2. 从结果中识别权威来源
   - 官方文档网站
   - 学术论文/研究机构
   - 行业标准组织
   - 领域内公认专家

3. 尝试专业工具
   - 用Context7查找库/框架文档
   - 用OpenAI docs MCP查找OpenAI特定主题
   - 用GitHub/代码库查找实现细节

来源挖掘技巧：

政府和学术域名（.gov、.edu、.ac.uk）通常更准确
官方项目文档对该项目而言是权威来源
Wikipedia仅作为起点，需跟进其引用来源
Stack Overflow回答需验证，查看投票数和日期
对内容农场和SEO优化的列表类内容保持怀疑

Phase 3: Deep Reading

阶段3：深度阅读

For each promising source:

Fetch full content — Use WebFetch or browser to get complete text
Extract key claims — Note specific facts, figures, dates, quotes
Note source metadata — Author, date, organization, potential biases
Identify citations — What sources does this source cite?
Flag conflicts — Does this contradict other sources?

Reading strategy for different source types:

Source Type	Strategy
Documentation	Read relevant sections fully; note version/date
Research paper	Abstract, conclusion, methodology in that order
News article	Check publication date, author credentials, cited sources
Blog post	Verify claims independently; note author's expertise
Forum/Q&A	Check answer date, votes, accepted status; verify independently

针对每个有价值的来源：

获取完整内容 —— 使用WebFetch或浏览器获取完整文本
提取关键主张 —— 记录具体事实、数据、日期、引用内容
记录来源元数据 —— 作者、日期、机构、潜在偏见
识别引用链 —— 该来源引用了哪些其他来源？
标记冲突点 —— 该内容是否与其他来源矛盾？

不同类型来源的阅读策略：

来源类型	策略
文档	完整阅读相关章节；记录版本/日期
研究论文	按摘要、结论、方法论的顺序阅读
新闻文章	查看发布日期、作者资质、引用来源
博客文章	独立验证主张；记录作者专业背景
论坛/问答	查看回答日期、投票数、采纳状态；独立验证

Phase 4: Cross-Verification

阶段4：交叉验证

For each major claim:

Find 2+ independent sources — Sources that don't cite each other
Check for conflicts — Note any disagreements between sources
Prefer newer sources — For rapidly evolving topics
Weight by authority — Primary sources > secondary > tertiary

Conflict resolution:

When sources disagree, report all positions with citations
Investigate why they disagree (different contexts, outdated info, different definitions)
If one source is clearly more authoritative, note that
Never silently pick one version

针对每个主要主张：

找到2个及以上独立来源 —— 来源间不存在互相引用关系
检查冲突 —— 记录来源间的分歧
优先选择较新来源 —— 针对快速演进的主题
按权威性加权 —— 一手来源 > 二手来源 > 三手来源

冲突解决：

当来源存在分歧时，附带引用报告所有立场
调查分歧原因（不同语境、过时信息、定义差异）
若某一来源明显更权威，需标注说明
绝不能默认选择某一版本

Phase 5: Synthesis & Output

阶段5：整合与输出

Structure findings clearly:

markdown

undefined

清晰结构化呈现研究结果：

markdown

undefined

Research Summary: [Topic]

研究摘要：[主题]

Key Findings

关键发现

[Finding 1]
- [Specific fact with citation]
- [Supporting evidence]
- Confidence: High/Medium/Low
- Sources: [1], [2]
[Finding 2] ...

[发现1]
- [带引用的具体事实]
- [佐证证据]
- 置信度：高/中/低
- 来源：[1], [2]
[发现2] ...

Conflicts & Uncertainties

冲突与不确定性

[Area of disagreement]: Source A claims X [1], while Source B claims Y [2]. [Analysis of why they differ]

[分歧领域]：来源A主张X [1]，而来源B主张Y [2]。[分歧原因分析]

Source Quality Assessment

来源质量评估

#	Source	Type	Authority	Recency	Notes
1	[URL]	Official docs	High	2024-01	Primary source
2	[URL]	Research paper	High	2023-06	Peer-reviewed
3	[URL]	Blog	Medium	2024-03	Author is [expert]

#	来源	类型	权威性	时效性	备注
1	[URL]	官方文档	高	2024-01	一手来源
2	[URL]	研究论文	高	2023-06	同行评审
3	[URL]	博客	中	2024-03	作者为[领域专家]

Gaps & Limitations

缺口与局限性

[What couldn't be verified]
[Areas needing more research]

[无法验证的内容]
[需进一步研究的领域]

Citations

引用列表

[1] [Full citation with URL] [2] [Full citation with URL] ...

undefined

[1] [含URL的完整引用] [2] [含URL的完整引用] ...

undefined

Confidence Levels

置信度等级

Assign confidence to each finding:

Level	Criteria
High	3+ independent authoritative sources agree; no conflicts
Medium	2 sources agree, or 1 highly authoritative source; minor conflicts
Low	Single source, or significant conflicts between sources
Uncertain	Sources conflict significantly; unable to determine truth

Always state confidence explicitly. "I'm not sure" is a valid research finding.

为每个发现分配置信度：

等级	判定标准
高	3个及以上独立权威来源达成一致；无冲突
中	2个来源达成一致，或1个高权威来源；存在轻微冲突
低	仅单一来源，或来源间存在显著冲突
不确定	来源间冲突显著；无法判定事实真相

需明确标注置信度。“不确定”是有效的研究结果。

Citation Format

引用格式

Use inline citations with numbered references:

markdown

The API rate limit is 60 requests per minute [1], though this can be increased
for enterprise accounts [2].

---
[1] OpenAI API Documentation, "Rate Limits", https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/rate-limits, accessed 2024-01-15
[2] OpenAI Enterprise FAQ, https://openai.com/enterprise, accessed 2024-01-15

Citation must include:

Source name/title
URL (if web source)
Access date (for web sources)
Publication date (if available)

使用带编号引用的内嵌标注：

markdown

API速率限制为每分钟60次请求 [1]，但企业账户可提升该限制 [2]。

---
[1] OpenAI API Documentation, "Rate Limits", https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/rate-limits, accessed 2024-01-15
[2] OpenAI Enterprise FAQ, https://openai.com/enterprise, accessed 2024-01-15

引用必须包含：

来源名称/标题
URL（若为网络来源）
访问日期（网络来源）
发布日期（若有）

Special Research Scenarios

特殊研究场景

Rapidly Evolving Topics (AI, crypto, etc.)

快速演进主题（AI、加密货币等）

Prioritize sources from last 6 months
Check official changelogs and release notes
Note when information might be outdated
Consider using browser to check current state directly

优先选择6个月内的来源
查看官方更新日志和发布说明
标注信息可能过时的部分
考虑直接用浏览器查看当前状态

Controversial Topics

争议性主题

Present multiple perspectives with citations for each
Identify the strongest arguments on each side
Note which sources might have biases and why
Don't pick sides unless evidence is overwhelming

呈现多方观点并为每个观点附带引用
识别各方的核心论据
标注可能存在偏见的来源及原因
除非证据确凿，否则不站队

Technical Implementation Questions

技术实现问题

Check official documentation first (Context7, MCP servers)
Look for example code in GitHub
Verify against actual behavior if possible
Note version-specific differences

首先查看官方文档（Context7、MCP服务器）
在GitHub中查找示例代码
若可能，对照实际行为验证
标注版本差异

Comparative Research ("X vs Y")

对比研究（“X vs Y”）

Use same evaluation criteria for all options
Find sources that compare directly when possible
Check for bias (vendor-sponsored comparisons)
Note what each option is optimized for

对所有选项使用相同评估标准
尽可能找到直接对比的来源
检查偏见（如厂商赞助的对比内容）
标注每个选项的优化方向

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

需避免的反模式

Anti-Pattern	Why It's Bad	Instead
Single source	No verification	Always find 2+ sources
Uncited claims	Unverifiable	Every fact needs a source
Assuming first result is best	SEO != accuracy	Evaluate source quality
Ignoring conflicts	Hides uncertainty	Report all positions
Outdated sources	Information decay	Check publication dates
Trusting AI summaries	May hallucinate	Go to primary sources
Stopping early	Incomplete picture	Research until diminishing returns

反模式	危害	正确做法
单一来源	无验证依据	始终找到2个及以上来源
无引用主张	无法验证	所有事实都需附带来源
假设首个结果最优	SEO不等于准确性	评估来源质量
忽略冲突	掩盖不确定性	报告所有立场
过时来源	信息失效	查看发布日期
信任AI摘要	可能生成幻觉内容	直接查看一手来源
过早停止研究	结果不完整	研究至收益递减点

Completion Criteria

完成标准

Research is complete when:

Core question(s) answered with citations
Key claims verified by 2+ independent sources
Conflicts and uncertainties explicitly noted
Source quality assessed for all citations
Confidence levels assigned to findings
Gaps and limitations documented

满足以下条件时研究完成：

核心问题已附带引用得到解答
关键主张已通过2个及以上独立来源验证
冲突和不确定性已明确标注
所有引用的来源质量已评估
为发现分配了置信度等级
已记录缺口与局限性

Reference Files

参考文件

For detailed guidance on specific scenarios:

Source Evaluation Criteria — How to assess source reliability
Search Strategies — Advanced query techniques for different domains

针对特定场景的详细指导：

Source Evaluation Criteria —— 如何评估来源可信度
Search Strategies —— 针对不同领域的高级查询技巧