Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
426 lines (326 loc) · 14.7 KB

File metadata and controls

426 lines (326 loc) · 14.7 KB

Research Documentation Template

Version: 2.0 - Unified Documentation System Last Updated: 2025-09-06 Purpose: Standardized research documentation with MCP integration Integration: Used for all research activities and findings


Research Questions

Primary Research Question: [What specific question are you trying to answer?] Secondary Questions: [Additional questions that support the primary question] Research Scope: [What areas will and won't be covered]


Methodology

Research Approach

Strategy: [Describe your overall research strategy] Sources: [What types of sources will you use] Validation: [How will you verify the quality of findings]

MCP Server Usage

Tools Used: [List MCP servers and tools used] Search Strategy: [Describe your search and extraction approach] Quality Assurance: [How you ensured research quality]


Findings

Key Discoveries

Finding 1: [Major discovery from research]

  • Source: [Where this finding came from]
  • Evidence: [Supporting evidence]
  • Impact: [How this affects the project]

Finding 2: [Another major discovery]

  • Source: [Where this finding came from]
  • Evidence: [Supporting evidence]
  • Impact: [How this affects the project]

Research Quality Assessment

Source Credibility: [Assessment of source reliability] Information Currency: [How up-to-date is the information] Practical Applicability: [How applicable to our project]


Implementation

Recommended Actions

Action 1: [Specific implementation recommendation]

  • Rationale: [Why this action is recommended]
  • Expected Outcome: [What result is expected]
  • Timeline: [When this should be implemented]

Action 2: [Another implementation recommendation]

  • Rationale: [Why this action is recommended]
  • Expected Outcome: [What result is expected]
  • Timeline: [When this should be implemented]

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks: [Potential technical challenges] Implementation Risks: [Potential implementation challenges] Mitigation Strategies: [How to address identified risks]


Research Overview

Research ID: [RESEARCH_YYYYMMDD_HHMM] Topic: [Specific research topic or question] Researcher: [Agent or team member conducting research] Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Duration: [Time spent on research]


Research Objectives

Primary Objective

[Specific research question or problem to solve]

  • Scope: [What aspects will be researched]
  • Depth: [Level of detail required]
  • Timeline: [Research completion timeline]

Secondary Objectives

  1. [Objective 1]: [Related research goal]
  2. [Objective 2]: [Supporting research goal]

Success Criteria

  • Information Quality: Find credible, current sources
  • Completeness: Address all aspects of research question
  • Practical Value: Findings applicable to implementation
  • Actionability: Clear recommendations from research

Research Methodology

MCP Server Strategy

Brave Search - Broad Research

Purpose: Identify state-of-the-art approaches and research Query Strategy:

  • [Query 1]: [Specific search terms, expected results]
  • [Query 2]: [Refined search terms, expected results]
  • [Query 3]: [Alternative search terms, expected results]

Expected Outcomes:

  • Current best practices and techniques
  • Research papers and scholarly articles
  • Industry case studies and benchmarks

Context7 - Implementation Guidance

Purpose: Get current Android documentation and examples Library Strategy:

  • [/android/core]: [Core Android APIs to research]
  • [/android/jetpack]: [Jetpack components to investigate]
  • [/android/kotlin]: [Kotlin-specific patterns and practices]

Expected Outcomes:

  • Current API documentation
  • Code examples and best practices
  • Implementation patterns and guidelines

Playwright - Comprehensive Extraction

Purpose: Extract complete documentation from web sources Source Strategy:

  • [Source 1]: [Official documentation sites]
  • [Source 2]: [Research paper repositories]
  • [Source 3]: [Technical blog and tutorial sites]

Expected Outcomes:

  • Complete technical documentation
  • Research papers and academic content
  • Implementation tutorials and guides

GitHub MCP - Validation

Purpose: Validate findings through repository analysis Validation Strategy:

  • Repository structure analysis
  • CI/CD pipeline review
  • Implementation pattern validation
  • Performance benchmark analysis

Research Phases

Phase 1: Discovery (2-4 hours)

  • Conduct broad searches with Brave Search
  • Identify key research areas and sources
  • Assess source credibility and recency
  • Document initial findings and insights

Phase 2: Deep Dive (4-6 hours)

  • Extract comprehensive content with Playwright
  • Get detailed documentation with Context7
  • Analyze implementation patterns
  • Cross-reference multiple sources

Phase 3: Synthesis (2-3 hours)

  • Combine findings from all sources
  • Identify patterns and best practices
  • Develop implementation recommendations
  • Create actionable insights

Research Findings

Brave Search Results

Query Results Summary

Query Results Found Relevance Score Key Insights Implementation Value
[Query 1] [Count] [1-10] [Summary] [High/Med/Low]
[Query 2] [Count] [1-10] [Summary] [High/Med/Low]
[Query 3] [Count] [1-10] [Summary] [High/Med/Low]

Key Findings from Brave Search

  1. [Topic/Area]: [Key insight, source credibility, practical application]

    • Source: [URL, publication date, credibility assessment]
    • Key Takeaway: [Most important insight]
    • Implementation Impact: [How this informs development]
  2. [Topic/Area]: [Key insight, source credibility, practical application]

    • Source: [URL, publication date, credibility assessment]
    • Key Takeaway: [Most important insight]
    • Implementation Impact: [How this informs development]

Context7 Results

Documentation Accessed

Library ID Topic Tokens Used Documentation Quality Usefulness
[/library/id] [Topic] [Tokens] [1-10] [High/Med/Low]

Key Findings from Context7

  1. [Library/Topic]: [Key documentation insight]

    • API Details: [Specific API information found]
    • Best Practices: [Recommended implementation patterns]
    • Code Examples: [Quality and applicability of examples]
  2. [Library/Topic]: [Key documentation insight]

    • API Details: [Specific API information found]
    • Best Practices: [Recommended implementation patterns]
    • Code Examples: [Quality and applicability of examples]

Playwright Results

Content Extracted

Source URL Content Type Extraction Quality Completeness Research Value
[URL] [Type] [1-10] [Percentage] [High/Med/Low]

Key Findings from Playwright

  1. [Source/Document]: [Key content extracted]

    • Content Quality: [Assessment of information quality]
    • Completeness: [How comprehensive the extraction was]
    • Practical Value: [Applicability to research question]
  2. [Source/Document]: [Key content extracted]

    • Content Quality: [Assessment of information quality]
    • Completeness: [How comprehensive the extraction was]
    • Practical Value: [Applicability to research question]

GitHub MCP Validation

Repository Analysis Results

  • Code Patterns: [Implementation patterns observed]
  • Architecture Insights: [Architectural approaches found]
  • Testing Strategies: [Testing patterns identified]
  • Performance Benchmarks: [Performance data collected]

Research Synthesis

Cross-Source Analysis

Consistent Findings

Finding: [Common insight across multiple sources]

  • Sources: [Which MCP servers/sources confirmed this]
  • Credibility: [Strength of evidence]
  • Confidence Level: [High/Medium/Low]

Finding: [Common insight across multiple sources]

  • Sources: [Which MCP servers/sources confirmed this]
  • Credibility: [Strength of evidence]
  • Confidence Level: [High/Medium/Low]

Contradictory Findings

Contradiction: [Conflicting information found]

  • Source A: [Position and supporting evidence]
  • Source B: [Opposing position and supporting evidence]
  • Resolution: [How contradiction was resolved]
  • Recommendation: [Suggested approach based on analysis]

Implementation Recommendations

Primary Recommendation

[Most strongly supported approach]

  • Rationale: [Why this is recommended based on research]
  • Supporting Evidence: [Key findings that support this recommendation]
  • Expected Benefits: [Anticipated improvements or advantages]
  • Implementation Considerations: [Requirements and constraints]

Alternative Approaches

  1. [Alternative 1]: [Description and rationale]

    • Pros: [Advantages of this approach]
    • Cons: [Disadvantages or limitations]
    • Use Case: [When this would be preferred]
  2. [Alternative 2]: [Description and rationale]

    • Pros: [Advantages of this approach]
    • Cons: [Disadvantages or limitations]
    • Use Case: [When this would be preferred]

Risk Assessment

Technical Risks

  • [Risk 1]: [Potential technical challenge]

    • Likelihood: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Mitigation: [Risk reduction strategy]
  • [Risk 2]: [Potential technical challenge]

    • Likelihood: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Mitigation: [Risk reduction strategy]

Implementation Risks

  • [Risk 1]: [Potential implementation challenge]
    • Likelihood: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Mitigation: [Risk reduction strategy]

Research Quality Assessment

Source Credibility Analysis

  • Primary Sources: [Official documentation, peer-reviewed papers]

    • Credibility Score: [1-10]
    • Recency: [How current the information is]
    • Authority: [Source reputation and expertise]
  • Secondary Sources: [Technical blogs, community content]

    • Credibility Score: [1-10]
    • Recency: [How current the information is]
    • Practical Value: [Real-world applicability]

Information Quality Metrics

  • Accuracy: [1-10 rating of technical correctness]
  • Completeness: [1-10 rating of information comprehensiveness]
  • Currency: [1-10 rating of how up-to-date information is]
  • Relevance: [1-10 rating of applicability to research question]

Research Effectiveness Metrics

  • Time Efficiency: [Hours spent vs. value gained]
  • Insight Quality: [Usefulness of findings for decision-making]
  • Implementation Guidance: [Clarity of recommendations]
  • Future Value: [Usefulness for ongoing development]

Actionable Insights

Immediate Implementation

  1. [Action 1]: [Specific, immediate step based on research]

    • Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Timeline: [When to implement]
    • Expected Impact: [Anticipated benefit]
  2. [Action 2]: [Specific, immediate step based on research]

    • Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
    • Timeline: [When to implement]
    • Expected Impact: [Anticipated benefit]

Medium-term Recommendations

  1. [Recommendation 1]: [2-4 week implementation]

    • Rationale: [Why this timeframe]
    • Requirements: [Prerequisites needed]
    • Success Metrics: [How to measure success]
  2. [Recommendation 2]: [2-4 week implementation]

    • Rationale: [Why this timeframe]
    • Requirements: [Prerequisites needed]
    • Success Metrics: [How to measure success]

Long-term Considerations

  1. [Consideration 1]: [Strategic insight for future development]
    • Timeline: [When this becomes relevant]
    • Monitoring: [What to watch for]
    • Triggers: [When to revisit this insight]

Research Documentation

Files Updated

  • docs/project-state/research-findings.md - Added research insights
  • docs/project-state/change-log.md - Documented research application
  • docs/frameworks/[relevant-framework].md - Updated framework guidance

Research Artifacts

  • Research Notes: [Location of detailed research notes]
  • Source Materials: [Location of extracted content]
  • Analysis Documents: [Location of detailed analysis]
  • Implementation Plans: [Location of action plans]

Knowledge Transfer

Key Insights for Team:

  • [Important finding that should be shared]
  • [Best practice that should be adopted]
  • [Technical pattern that should be documented]

Training Recommendations:

  • [Skill or knowledge gap identified]
  • [Training resource or approach recommended]
  • [Process improvement suggested]

Research Follow-up

Validation Requirements

  • Implementation Testing: Validate research recommendations
  • Performance Measurement: Measure impact of implemented changes
  • User Feedback: Gather feedback on implemented changes
  • Iteration Planning: Plan follow-up research based on results

Monitoring and Updates

  • Research Currency: Monitor for new developments in researched areas
  • Implementation Tracking: Track adoption of research recommendations
  • Effectiveness Assessment: Measure impact of research-informed changes
  • Knowledge Updates: Update team knowledge based on research findings

Future Research Triggers

  • Technology Updates: When new versions of researched technologies are released
  • Performance Issues: If implemented solutions don't meet expectations
  • New Requirements: When project requirements change significantly
  • Community Feedback: When user feedback suggests research updates needed

Research Summary

Research Question: [Original research question] Primary Finding: [Most important insight or recommendation] Confidence Level: [High/Medium/Low based on evidence strength] Implementation Priority: [High/Medium/Low based on impact and urgency] Next Steps: [Immediate actions based on research findings]

Research Effectiveness:

  • Time Invested: [Total hours spent]
  • Value Generated: [Expected impact and benefits]
  • Knowledge Gained: [New insights and understanding]
  • Process Improvements: [Research methodology enhancements identified]

This research template ensures comprehensive, MCP-integrated research documentation. Use this format for all research activities to maintain consistency and maximize research value.