What is multi-source-investigation?

The Multi-Source Investigation skill is designed to conduct rigorous, systematic research by cross-referencing information across diverse sources including academic, official, and journalistic outlets. It solves the problem of misinformation and surface-level analysis by applying formal credibility assessments (CRAAP test) and consensus mapping, providing users with a comprehensive, verified, and unbiased understanding of complex topics.

When should I use multi-source-investigation?

multi-source-investigation is useful in the following scenarios: • Fact-checking viral news or public claims by cross-referencing official government data, academic research, and reputable news outlets. • Conducting deep-dive market or academic research that requires synthesizing conflicting viewpoints and identifying the weight of evidence for each. • Performing due diligence on organizations or individuals by investigating multiple independent sources to verify credentials and history. • Building a balanced understanding of controversial public policy issues by mapping stakeholder perspectives and identifying areas of consensus versus debate.

name	multi-source-investigation
description	Conducts systematic investigations across diverse information sources with cross-validation and credibility assessment. Use when researching complex topics, fact-checking claims, understanding different perspectives, or building comprehensive understanding. Triggers on phrases like "investigate", "verify", "fact check", "cross-reference", "multiple sources", "different perspectives on".

Multi-Source Investigation

This skill guides systematic investigation across diverse sources with rigorous validation.

Phase 1: Investigation Scope

Central Question

What exactly are you investigating?
What would a complete answer look like?
What level of certainty is needed?

Stakeholder Mapping

Identify who has knowledge or interests:

Domain experts
Practitioners
Affected parties
Critics/skeptics
Regulators/authorities

Known Perspectives

What positions already exist on this topic?
Who holds each position?
What evidence supports each?

CHECKPOINT: Confirm investigation scope with user.

Phase 2: Source Diversification

Source Type Matrix

Type	Strengths	Limitations	Examples
Academic	Peer-reviewed, rigorous	May lag current events	Journals, conferences
Official	Authoritative	May have political bias	Government, institutions
Industry	Practical, current	Commercial interests	White papers, reports
Journalism	Accessible, current	Variable quality	News outlets
Expert	Deep knowledge	Individual perspective	Interviews, blogs
Primary	Direct evidence	Needs interpretation	Data, documents

Minimum Source Diversity

Aim for at least:

2+ academic sources
2+ credible news/journalism sources
1+ official/institutional source
1+ expert commentary
Primary data when available

Phase 3: Systematic Retrieval

Search Execution

For each source type:

Academic:

site:arxiv.org OR site:scholar.google.com [topic]

News/Journalism:

site:reuters.com OR site:apnews.com [topic]

Official:

site:gov OR site:edu [topic]

Information Extraction

For each source, document:

Source metadata (author, date, outlet)
Key claims made
Evidence provided
Methodology (if applicable)
Potential biases
Links to other sources

Phase 4: Credibility Assessment

CRAAP Test

Criterion	Questions
Currency	When published? Updated? Still relevant?
Relevance	Relates to question? Appropriate depth?
Authority	Author credentials? Publisher reputation?
Accuracy	Supported by evidence? Verifiable? Reviewed?
Purpose	Inform, persuade, sell? Biases disclosed?

Credibility Scoring

Rate each source 1-5:

5: Highly credible (peer-reviewed, authoritative, transparent)
4: Credible (reputable source, clear methodology)
3: Moderately credible (some concerns but usable)
2: Questionable (significant issues, use cautiously)
1: Not credible (exclude from analysis)

Threshold: Only include sources scoring ≥ 3

Phase 5: Cross-Validation

Claim Validation Matrix

Claim	Source A	Source B	Source C	Consensus	Confidence
[Claim 1]	✓	✓	✓	Strong	High
[Claim 2]	✓	~	✗	Mixed	Low
[Claim 3]	✓	✓	?	Partial	Medium

Legend: ✓=supports, ✗=contradicts, ~=nuanced, ?=no data

Handling Disagreements

When sources conflict:

Assess relative credibility
Check for newer evidence
Identify reasons for disagreement
Note the uncertainty

CHECKPOINT: Present conflicting findings for user input.

Phase 6: Perspective Synthesis

Perspective Map

                    Position A
                        |
    Position D ----[Topic]---- Position B
                        |
                    Position C

For each position:

Who holds it?
What evidence supports it?
What are its limitations?
How does it relate to others?

Certainty Classification

Well-established: High consensus, strong evidence
Likely: Preponderance of evidence
Uncertain: Conflicting evidence
Unknown: Insufficient data
Contested: Active debate, valid arguments on multiple sides

Phase 7: Investigation Report

Output Structure

# Investigation: [Topic]

## Question
[Central question investigated]

## Methodology
- Sources searched: [List]
- Time period: [Range]
- Inclusion criteria: [Criteria]

## Source Summary
| Source | Type | Credibility | Key Claims |
|--------|------|-------------|------------|
| [Source] | [Type] | [Score] | [Claims] |

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Statement]
- Evidence: [Summary]
- Sources: [Citations]
- Certainty: [Level]

### Finding 2: [Statement]
[Same structure]

## Contested Points
- [Point]: [Summary of disagreement]

## Perspective Map
[Visual or narrative of different positions]

## Limitations
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]

## Conclusions
[What can be confidently concluded]
[What remains uncertain]

## References
[Formatted citations]

multi-source-investigation

When & Why to Use This Skill

Use Cases