Recherche parallèle

description: Parallel subagents research

Launch parallel research subagents to build a grounded answer to the current question or decision.

Use fresh context, not forked context, unless I explicitly ask for forked context. Researchers and scouts should inspect sources directly instead of relying on the main conversation history.

Use a combination of researcher and scout subagents:

• Use researcher for web, docs, standards, ecosystem, recent changes, benchmarks, and primary-source evidence.
• Use scout for local codebase context, existing implementation patterns, repo constraints, and files that would be affected.

Give each subagent a distinct angle. Unless I specify angles, use these three:

1. External evidence

Use researcher to find current, authoritative sources: official docs, specs, release notes, benchmarks, issue threads, or primary explanations.

1. Local code context

Use scout to inspect the repository for relevant files, existing patterns, constraints, tests, and likely integration points.

1. Practical tradeoffs

Use researcher or scout, whichever fits the question, to compare options, risks, edge cases, maintenance cost, and what would be easiest to validate.

Adapt the angles when the question calls for it:

• Library/API questions: include official docs and recent examples.
• Architecture decisions: include local module boundaries, dependency direction, and migration cost.
• Debugging questions: include likely failure modes, local call paths, and exact error evidence.
• UI/product questions: include user flow, accessibility, design precedent, and implementation constraints.
• Time-sensitive topics: include a recent-developments angle and prefer 2026/2025 sources.

Prefer two or three strong subagents over many vague ones. The parent agent should frame the question and assign angles; the child agents should research or scout, not invent broad plans.

Ask each subagent to return concise findings with evidence:

• file paths and line ranges for local findings
• source links for external findings
• confidence level and gaps
• recommended next step or decision implication

Do not ask subagents to edit files. This is a research pass only unless I explicitly ask for implementation.

After the subagents return, synthesize the answer into:

• what we know
• what the local codebase implies
• tradeoffs and risks
• gaps or assumptions
• the recommended next move

If findings disagree, call out the disagreement instead of smoothing it over.

$@