recency-brief-research v1.0.0

name: recency-brief-research description: Research a fast-moving topic across Reddit, X, YouTube, Hacker News, prediction markets, and the web, then synthesize a recency-weighted brief with confidence labels. Triggers on "what's the latest on X", "brief me on X", "what are people saying about X", cross-platform sentiment checks, and any request for a current-state research brief.

Recency Brief Research

Purpose

Turn "what is happening with X right now" into a brief a reader can defend: every claim dated, sourced, and labeled with how much to trust it. The differentiator is the method, not the lane count: source triage, explicit recency weighting, and confidence labels applied from real research practice. Without those three, a multi-platform sweep is just a pile of links.

Workflow

1. Frame the question

Write one concrete sentence for what the brief must answer. Note the topic's clock speed, because it sets the recency scale:

• Fast (breaking news, launches, incidents): hours matter.
• Medium (product debates, market moves, policy fights): days matter.
• Slow (research trends, standards, background): weeks matter.

Pick a mode. Flash reads fewer pages and skips the refutation pass; Standard is the default; Deep adds a refutation query per key claim and a gaps section.

2. Sweep the lanes

Cover all six lanes. Run the per-lane query for the topic, and record per-lane results before synthesizing. Verified access recipes live in references/platform-recipes.md.

| Lane | Route | What it is good for | |---|---|---| | Web | browser.search per facet, then open the pages | Primary docs, news, official statements | | Reddit | search engine site:reddit.com, sort=new; open threads in the browser | Practitioner experience, edge cases, sentiment | | X | search engine site:x.com; x.com/search in the browser | Fastest signal, announcements, rumor mill | | YouTube | search engine site:youtube.com; check upload date + channel | Demos, explainers, interviews | | HN | Algolia API: https://hn.algolia.com/api/v1/search?query=<q>&tags=story | Technical read, skepticism, primary comments | | Markets | Polymarket https://gamma-api.polymarket.com/public-search?q=<q>; Kalshi /trade-api/v2/events | What money believes; treat as bettor sentiment, not truth |

Never synthesize from snippets alone. Snippets pick which pages to open; opened pages supply the facts.

3. Triage each source

For every item you keep, record: platform, author type (official, journalist, practitioner, anonymous), evidence class (data, document, eyewitness, bare claim), date, and stance (neutral, opinion, promotional). Engagement (upvotes, likes, volume) is a weak signal only: it measures attention, not accuracy. One viral post is still one source.

4. Apply recency weights

Score each kept item: item_score = recency_weight x source_weight x independence_factor.

• recency_weight: from the weight schedule for the topic's clock speed in references/weighting.md. Fresh items dominate; stale items only supply background.
• source_weight: 1.0 official/primary document, 0.8 reputable secondary, 0.5 single practitioner account, 0.2 anonymous or promotional.
• independence_factor: 1.0 if the item adds a source no other item has; 0.5 if it just repeats a source you already counted (five outlets quoting one press release is one source, not five).

Run the numbers with bin/recency_weight.py when the item list is long. Eyeball them when it is short. Either way, show the weights in the brief so the reader sees why a claim ranks where it does.

5. Label confidence

Every headline claim gets one label, using the criteria in references/weighting.md:

• HIGH: corroborated by 2+ independent strong sources inside the recency window, no credible refutation.
• MEDIUM: one strong source plus corroborating weak sources, or two independent weak sources; minor age or one noted refutation.
• LOW: single source, anonymous/weak source, stale, or thin engagement.
• UNRESOLVED: sources disagree and neither side wins. Carry the disagreement with a one-line "why this might differ".

Tag the epistemic level too: FACT (verified from a primary source), INFERENCE (your reasoning, shown), OPINION (whose, and on what basis), RUMOR (unverified, spreading). Never present RUMOR as FACT.

6. Synthesize

Lead with the answer and its confidence, then the evidence. Reconcile numbers: agreement gets a consensus value; disagreement gets the range plus the spread's cause. State the strongest argument against your conclusion. List what you could not establish. Timestamp every probability and price from prediction markets; they move.

Output Contract

The brief must contain, in order:

1. Header: question, as-of timestamp with timezone, mode, clock speed.
2. TL;DR: 2-4 sentences, each with a confidence label.
3. Headline findings: each claim with confidence label, epistemic tag, dates, and sources. Weights shown or linked.
4. Platform pulse: 1-2 lines per lane (what each lane says, labeled FACT/OPINION/RUMOR).
5. Markets snapshot (if markets exist): event, probability, timestamp. One line on what the market implies, labeled INFERENCE.
6. Disagreements: source A says X, source B says Y, why they might differ.
7. Gaps: what nobody established; sources you wanted but could not reach.
8. Sources table: publisher, date, URL, relevance.

Operating Rules

1. "Every factual claim in a skill must be verified via web search or a primary source. Never invent numbers, dates, quotes, or events. Unverifiable = cut it or frame as opinion. No confident unverified claims, ever."
2. No em dashes anywhere in output. No ChatGPT-speak: no "delve", no "tapestry", no "landscape" as metaphor, no "in today's fast-paced world", no "it's not X, it's Y" pivots, no "moreover/furthermore", no "in conclusion", no "game-changer/unlock/elevate/supercharge", no "let's dive in", no stacked triple adjectives, no rhetorical-question-then-answer setups.
3. Prediction markets report bettor belief, never truth. A 70% market is "bettors price this at 70%", not "this is 70% likely".
4. Reddit/X/YouTube coverage via search engines and the browser is normal; do not present their access limits as a research failure, but do list unreachable sources in Gaps.
5. When two workers could brief the same topic, check recent briefs first and dedup: one smaller story done deep beats three headline rehashes.