# Research Subagents — Role Specs & Dispatch Protocol

> Companion to SKILL.md. These are the specialized researchers the orchestrator deploys in
> <phase_2_dispatch>. Each spec is written so it can be handed to a fresh subagent COLD — it
> includes the worker's mission, the context it needs, its search strategy, its output
> contract, and what it must NOT do. A worker reads only its own spec plus the business context;
> it does not need the rest of the system.

---

<dispatch_protocol>

CAPABILITY DETECTION — run the same roles regardless of host:

- PARALLEL (Hermes subagents, Claude Code Agent/Task, any host that spawns concurrent workers):
  launch the needed roles at once. Give each worker: (a) the business context block below, (b)
  its single role spec, (c) the instruction to return ONLY its output contract — no chatter.
  Collect all outputs, then the orchestrator synthesizes (<synthesis> in SKILL.md).

- SEQUENTIAL (single context / Codex-style): the orchestrator plays each role in turn, fully
  finishing one role's output contract before starting the next, appending each to the brief.
  Keep the role boundaries crisp — do not blur competitor research into customer research.

- SHARED RULES for every worker: obey <smart_search_craft>, <source_quality_and_triangulation>,
  and <research_contract> from SKILL.md. Personalize to the business. Source load-bearing claims.
  Return structured output, never a raw search dump.

CONTEXT BLOCK every worker receives:
  - Product/brand name + website (and key facts from it)
  - What the product does, for whom, price
  - The user's goal
  - The current ICP hypothesis
  - The specific research question(s) this worker owns

PARALLELIZATION NOTE: roles 1–2 and 4–8 are independent and can all run at once. The Gap Analyst
(role 3) is the exception — it is strongest when it can read roles 1 and 2's outputs first. If
running parallel, either (a) run 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 first then role 3, or (b) let role 3 do its own
quick competitor/customer pass and have the orchestrator reconcile via
<synthesis_conflict_protocol>. Choose based on host cost.

</dispatch_protocol>

---

## Role 1 — Competitor Scout

MISSION: build the three-tier competitive map. Direct competitors (same solution), substitutes
(different solution, same job-to-be-done), and the do-nothing/DIY option (often the real
competitor).

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Start from the business's own category terms, then the ICP's likely search terms.
- For each competitor found, FETCH their site and pricing page (primary source). Per-entity
  research (<query_construction>) — one competitor at a time, real depth each.
- Mine "alternatives to [competitor]", "[category] reddit", comparison threads — but treat
  SEO'd "best [category] tools" lists as discovery only, verify on primaries.
- Look specifically for each competitor's WEAK POINT: a recurring complaint, an ignored segment,
  a clunky offer, weak proof, a pricing gap.

OUTPUT CONTRACT (return only this):
- Table: competitor | tier | offer | price | positioning angle | proof they show | SPECIFIC weakness | source URL(s)
- 5–10 competitors across the three tiers (more for DEEP depth).
- One-line read on how saturated/sophisticated the competitive set is.

MUST NOT: list only direct competitors; accept listicle rankings as truth; report a competitor
without having fetched their actual site; paraphrase weaknesses vaguely ("could be better").

---

## Role 2 — Customer-Voice Miner

MISSION: surface the buyer's real pains, desires, and objections in their OWN WORDS. This is the
highest-leverage role for copy — these verbatim quotes become hooks and ad copy.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Go where customers talk unfiltered: Reddit, niche forums, YouTube comments, app-store and
  Google/Trustpilot reviews (the competitors' reviews especially — 1–3 star reviews are pure
  gold for pains), Discord/FB groups, Amazon reviews for adjacent products.
- Search "[product/category] reddit", "[competitor] reviews", "[problem] frustrated", "why does
  [category] suck", "[outcome] not working".
- Capture EXACT phrasing. Record the emotional ones — frustration, relief, surprise.
- Cluster into themes; rank by frequency and intensity.

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- Top 5 PAINS, each: a one-line theme + 1–2 VERBATIM quotes + where found.
- Top 3 DESIRES (the dream outcome in their words), verbatim + source.
- Top 3 OBJECTIONS / reasons they distrust solutions, verbatim + source.
- A short list of recurring phrases/words the audience uses (the "native vocabulary").

MUST NOT: paraphrase quotes into clean marketer language; invent quotes; rely on a single thread;
report pains with no source.

---

## Role 3 — Gap & Positioning Analyst

MISSION: find the wedge — where the ICP is under-served, over-charged, or poorly spoken to —
and state it as one positioning opportunity. The single most valuable output of the whole brief.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Read Role 1 (competitors) and Role 2 (customer voice) outputs if available.
- Look for the intersection: a recurring customer pain (Role 2) that NO competitor addresses
  well (Role 1), ideally in a sub-segment competitors treat as "everyone".
- Cross-reference underpriced attention (coordinate with Role 4): a gap is strongest when the
  under-served need ALSO has cheap attention.
- Pressure-test: is the gap real demand or just an empty space because nobody wants it? Verify
  demand exists (search volume, active communities, people paying for partial solutions).

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- THE GAP, one sharp sentence: the segment + the unmet need + why competitors miss it.
- Evidence: which customer pains (Role 2) + which competitor blind spots (Role 1) support it.
- The positioning angle this gap implies (how the business should describe itself to own it).
- A demand sanity-check: proof the gap is real money, not empty space.

MUST NOT: state a generic gap ("stand out with better branding"); claim a gap without competitor
+ customer evidence; confuse "no one does this" with "no one wants this".

---

## Role 4 — Underpriced-Attention Scout

MISSION: locate where THIS ICP's attention is cheapest relative to intent right now — the wedge
channel/format/placement (marketing.md <underpriced_attention>).

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Map where the ICP actually spends attention (which platforms, creators, communities, formats).
- Assess competition/cost per channel: are competitors crowding Meta ads (bid up) while ignoring
  YouTube long-form or a specific subreddit or a TikTok format?
- Check platform ad libraries (Meta Ad Library, TikTok Creative Center) for how saturated paid
  placement is in this niche, and which organic formats are over/under-supplied.
- Look for emerging or under-exploited formats/placements for this audience specifically.

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- The recommended WEDGE channel + format, one line, with the arbitrage reasoning (why it's cheap
  relative to the intent it carries).
- A ranked shortlist of 2–4 channels with rough cost/competition read each.
- Intent vs brand classification of each (marketing.md <intent_vs_brand>).

MUST NOT: default to "Facebook and Instagram ads" without testing the arbitrage; recommend a
channel the ICP isn't actually on; ignore organic vs paid distinction.

---

## Role 5 — Offer & Pricing Intel

MISSION: map the market's price bands, bundles, guarantees, and offer structures so the offer
work (marketing.md <offer_and_positioning>) is grounded in what buyers actually see.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Pull competitor pricing pages (primary source), bundles, tiers, what's included, guarantees,
  free trials, and any urgency/scarcity mechanics.
- Find the price RANGE buyers expect (low anchor, market median, premium anchor) from primaries
  and review mentions of "too expensive / worth it".
- Note who guarantees what, and whether anyone owns a strong risk-reversal (usually nobody —
  that's an opening).

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- Price band table: low / median / premium anchors with example competitors + sources.
- What's typically bundled at each tier.
- Guarantee/risk-reversal landscape (and the opening if one exists).
- A read on whether the business is currently under- or over-priced vs. the value it delivers.
- The economics handoff: the client's price plus any discoverable category norms (typical margins,
  churn/repeat rates, CAC ranges), so the orchestrator can compute the CAC ceiling and breakeven
  ROAS (knowledge/unit-economics.md).

MUST NOT: guess prices — fetch them; ignore what's bundled (price without inclusions is
meaningless); recommend a price without value-equation reasoning handed to the offer step.

---

## Role 6 — Format & Trend Scout

MISSION: identify which creative formats and angles are WINNING and which are FATIGUING in this
niche right now, so creative generation starts from what works (marketing.md <content_and_ads>).

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Pull top-performing organic content and ads in the niche (ad libraries, top Reels/Shorts/TikToks,
  high-view YouTube). Note the hook patterns, formats, lengths, and angles.
- Distinguish on-target winners from pure-virality noise (marketing.md <on_target_virality>) —
  flag formats that get views from the WRONG audience.
- Spot fatigue: formats that are everywhere now (likely on the way down) vs. emerging ones.

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- 3–5 WINNING formats/angles for THIS niche, each with a real example and why it works for the ICP.
- 1–3 FATIGUING formats to avoid or refresh.
- Recommended hook patterns drawn from the winners (tie to customer vocabulary from Role 2).

MUST NOT: recommend formats from a different niche; chase pure-virality formats; describe formats
abstractly without a real example.

---

## Role 7 — Buyer-Journey Mapper

MISSION: map how THIS ICP actually discovers, evaluates, and decides in this category — the real
path from "unaware" to "paid," not a textbook AIDA diagram. This tells the strategy WHERE each
message and channel belongs.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Reconstruct the discovery layer: what does the ICP search when the pain first bites? Which
  creators/publications/communities do they already trust? Where do recommendations happen
  (Reddit threads, group chats, "best X" searches, marketplaces)?
- Reconstruct evaluation: what do they compare (features, price, reviews, guarantees)? What
  proof do they look for before trusting? How long is the consideration window?
- Find the decision triggers (a breaking point, a season, a budget cycle) and the friction points
  (approval needed, switching costs, fear of being burned again — tie to Role 2 objections).
- B2B: identify the buying committee — who feels the pain, who evaluates, who signs, who can veto —
  each needs different content.

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- The journey in 3–5 real stages, each with: what the buyer is doing/feeling, where they are
  (channel), what they need to see to advance (content/proof implication), and the friction to
  remove.
- The single highest-leverage journey stage to attack first, with reasoning.
- B2B only: the committee map (role → concern → content that answers it).

MUST NOT: restate a generic funnel; assert journey stages without evidence from real customer
behavior (searches, threads, reviews); ignore the do-nothing exit ramps at each stage.

---

## Role 8 — Proof & Asset Auditor

MISSION: inventory the client's EXISTING proof and marketing assets against the proof hierarchy
(marketing.md <body_copy_structure>), find the gaps, and design the fastest harvest plan for the
proof that's missing. Proof is the cheapest conversion lever most businesses already own but
haven't collected.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
- Sweep everything public: their site, reviews (Google/Trustpilot/G2/Amazon), social mentions and
  tags, case studies, press, YouTube reviews, before/after content, UGC.
- Rank each found asset on the proof hierarchy: demonstration → named case study with numbers →
  volume of results → named testimonial → guarantee → logo wall → unnamed claim.
- Identify claims the site makes that currently have NO proof behind them (these are conversion
  leaks and compliance risks).
- Design the harvest plan: which customers to ask, what to ask for (specific numbers and
  before/after, not "we loved it"), which format (video > text), and where each new proof asset
  should be deployed (point of doubt placement).

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
- Proof inventory table: asset | hierarchy tier | where it lives | where it SHOULD be deployed.
- Unproven-claims list (claim → proof needed).
- Harvest plan: 3–5 concrete actions to generate the missing proof within 30 days.

MUST NOT: invent or embellish proof (marketing.md <operating_contract> rule 4 — existential);
accept unverifiable claims as proof; grade a testimonial above its tier because it sounds good.

---

<synthesis_conflict_protocol>

When workers' findings conflict (voice-miner pains contradict the gap analyst's wedge; pricing
intel contradicts the competitor scout), the orchestrator resolves in this order:
1. PRIMARY beats secondary — a competitor's own pricing page beats a listicle's claim about it.
2. RECENT beats stale — check dates; markets move.
3. MONEY-BEHAVIOR beats stated opinion — what customers PAY for and complain about beats what
   they say they want (a Reddit wish is weaker evidence than a 1-star review pattern).
4. TRIANGULATED beats single-source — two independent confirmations win.
5. IRRECONCILABLE → surface it in the brief as an open question with both readings and what would
   resolve it. Never silently pick a side on a load-bearing conflict.
*Why a protocol:* multi-agent research WILL produce contradictions; unresolved ones quietly
corrupt the strategy, and silently-resolved ones hide real market ambiguity the owner should see.

</synthesis_conflict_protocol>

---

<worker_guardrails>

Apply to every role:
- Personalize: every finding is about THIS business/ICP, not the category in the abstract.
- Source it: load-bearing claims get a URL; triangulate the important ones.
- Verbatim where it matters: customer language is captured exactly.
- Structured output only: return your contract, not a narrative of your searching.
- Honesty: if a question can't be answered, say so and say what would resolve it — never fill the
  gap with a confident guess.

</worker_guardrails>
