dossier-report

Panel: 5 backends. All 5 read end to end, not merged.

  Claims extracted        41
  Citations resolved      41 / 41
  Contradictions found     3  → own section on the page

  BUILD FAILED once: 2 citations returned 404.
  Re-run after replacing them.

Page designed from its own subject, so consecutive
dossiers do not converge on one look.

<strong>Ask a question. Get a published page that can prove what it says.</strong>

</p>

---

You run deep research on something. Five backends come back with a few hundred thousand words between them. You skim the merged summary, write the thing up, and ship it.

That's the failure this skill exists to stop, and it isn't hypothetical. It happened twice on pages in this account. The research tool printed "5 never opened" in bold at the top of its own output, and the page got written from the summary underneath it anyway.

A merged summary isn't a summary. It's a list of what the backends didn't have in common. Write from it and you've described the gaps between five reports rather than what any of them found.

What it does

You give it a question. It gives you a finished page at ~/Dev/dossier/<slug>/index.html, live at <slug>.fledgeling.app.

In between it runs a research panel across paid and free backends, reads every report end to end, turns the corpus into a list of claims with sources attached, then designs the page from scratch around its own subject. Every claim carries a citation you can open. Every source appears in a list at the bottom. Nothing ships that the research didn't support.

Each page looks like a different page. That's deliberate, and it's the part most likely to go wrong quietly. Design homogenisation has been measured: across a decade of the web, layout similarity fell 44%, and the strongest cause was everyone reaching for the same handful of libraries. The giveaway isn't the colours. It's the skeleton and the motion. So the skill reuses the plumbing (citations, accessibility, the audit) and throws away the layout every time, checking each new page against the ones already published to make sure it isn't the last one recoloured.

How a run goes

1. Sharpen the question before spending anything, because the research prompt is frozen the moment the panel starts and $5 to $20 rides on it.
2. Widen the angles so the brief isn't the first three subtopics any model would list.
3. Run the panel, then read all of it. Not the outline. Not the merge.
4. Build the claim list, so citations come from the evidence rather than getting bolted on afterwards.
5. Pick the name and the look, with you in the loop.
6. Find a visual direction from the subject, not from a template.
7. Build it, with the words in Luke's voice and the design held to a research-backed standard.
8. Make an icon for the page.
9. Audit it, then stop and ask before anything goes public.

Install

/plugin marketplace add fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins
/plugin install dossier-report

Then just ask:

research whether home batteries actually pay for themselves in
Australia and make a page for it

Does it actually work

Six tests, each run twice: once with the skill, once with no skill at all. That's the honest comparison for something new, because it asks whether the thing earns its place.

On the checkable stuff: 31 out of 31, against 25 out of 31 without.

On a blind quality panel, where judges saw both versions with no idea which was which: seven to four. Two judge families, eleven comparisons.

Both numbers are true and the shape underneath matters more than either. The skill wins on things a model can't guess, because somebody decided them: the marketing bar on every page, the share tags, the test a 3D scene has to pass. It's much closer where the job is just good judgment, the two judge families disagreed with each other on the aggregate, and on the biggest test of all (build the whole page) the version with no skill won.

So it's worth having for consistency, not for brilliance. It makes the compulsory boring things happen every time.

The full report card is in EVALS.md, including the three places the no-skill version beat it and the fix for each, and the two tests that turned out to measure nothing.

Note: the tests also found a wrong claim in the skill's own research notes, a broken check in its own audit script, and a citation bug that would have quietly killed every source link on a page when JavaScript was off. All fixed, all written up.

What's underneath

Five research backends, $20.00, 225 sources, every report read in full and every citation dereferenced. The reports are committed in docs/deep-research/ so anything the skill claims can be traced from inside the repo.

The rules come from that research rather than from taste. Pages lead with the finding because half of readers never reach halfway down. Animation is allowed when it lets you see a change you'd otherwise have to hold in your head, and cut when it's atmosphere. 3D has to pass six tests before it's allowed near a page. Truncating a chart axis inflates what people think they're seeing by 58% to 130%, and telling them doesn't fix it, so the axes get checked before the page is drawn.

references/evidence.md has all of it with the sources attached, including the places the five backends flatly contradicted each other.

Credit where it's due

The research panel runs on Dossier, and the pages carry a quiet mark for it and for Margin.