Contenu du pack

Un fichier SKILL.md (le guide pratique) + un modèle de départ. Aperçu :

Investigative Dossier

When to use

• You're a journalist chasing a story where the pieces are scattered across public records, old posts,
  filings, and interviews — and nobody has put them together yet
• You're doing due diligence on a company, founder, or counterparty: what's on the record, what do
  their own words say, where do the stories conflict
• You're a researcher mapping how a deal, scandal, or controversy actually unfolded — billboard
  campaigns, social-media stunts, secret profit arrangements — from what was said and done in public
• You're vetting a claim someone made about themselves: resume lines, "sold the company" stories,
  funding announcements, awards that don't exist
• You're preparing for an interview with a difficult subject and need every public contradiction of
  theirs in one document before you sit down
• You're an analyst writing a background memo on a person or entity where accuracy matters more than
  speed — the kind of file a newsroom or a board would actually rely on
• You're a citizen researcher or student learning to separate verified fact from viral rumor on a
  contested topic, and you want a method instead of a thread

Workflow

1. The Question (input: a topic or hunch → output: one-page investigation brief)
   Write the question before collecting anything. Not "look into X" — a real question: "Did Company
   A conceal the terms of its 2024 licensing deal?" or "What is the actual employment history behind
   Founder B's public biography?" Then add:

• Scope: the people and entities involved, named explicitly. If a name isn't on this list,
  it's out.
• Time window: the dates that matter. Open-ended investigations never end; bounded ones do.
• Success criteria: what "answered" looks like — "a company-by-company table of officerships,
  each row source-cited."
• Out of scope: say it in writing — family members, unrelated business lines, speculation
  about motives. The out-of-scope list is what keeps a dossier from becoming a fishing expedition.
• A dossier built on a vague question becomes a pile, not a file — this brief is what every later
  step answers to. If the question changes mid-investigation (it will), revise the brief and date the
  revision. Never let the question drift silently.

1. Collection (input: brief → output: evidence inventory)
   Collect only what is public or on the record. Work through the source ladder from strongest to
   weakest:

• Primary documents: corporate filings, court records, regulatory disclosures, property and
  trademark registries, campaign-finance data, archived official pages. These anchor everything.
• The subject's own words: their posts, interviews, press releases, books, testimony,
  investor decks. People contradict themselves more often than enemies contradict them — their own
  archive is usually the richest source in the file.
• Secondary reporting: reputable outlets' reporting, each logged with its own sourcing note
  (did the outlet see the document, or is it citing another outlet?).
• Context material: industry data, expert background, historical timelines — useful for
  interpretation, never for claims.
• Log every item the moment you find it: what it is, where it came from, the exact URL or record
  number, and the date you captured it. Screenshot or archive anything that could disappear — the
  internet forgets on schedule, and public figures delete on purpose. A claim with a dead link is an
  uncorroborated claim.
• Hard boundaries: nothing behind a login you don't own, nothing obtained by deception or
  pretexting, nothing hacked or leaked through illicit means, no private messages you weren't a party
  to. If a source can't be cited openly, it doesn't go in the file. If you're unsure whether a source
  is legitimate, it stays out until you're sure.

1. Timeline (input: evidence inventory → output: chronological event map)
   Lay every dated fact on one timeline — one row per event, in order, no commentary yet. Public
   statement on March 3, filing on March 14, contradictory post on April 2. Then:

• Mark each entry with its source, so the reader can see at a glance which dates rest on solid
  filings and which rest on a single post.
• Flag divergences explicitly: anywhere the subject's public story and the paper trail visibly
  separate, mark it with a ⚑. This is where documentaries find their spine — the divergence is usually
  the story.
• Note the silences too: long gaps where a normally vocal subject went quiet, filings that should
  exist but don't, periods where the record thins. Absences are data.
• Keep two layers if the case is complex: a public-facing timeline (what was said and done in the
  open) and a records timeline (what the documents show). Laying them side by side is where
  contradictions become undeniable.

1. Triangulation (input: timeline + inventory → output: confidence-graded claims)
   Turn observations into claims — one claim per row — and grade every claim with a fixed rubric:

• Confirmed: three independent sources, or one primary document that directly establishes it.
  This is the only grade that can carry a headline.
• Probable: two independent sources pointing the same way. Usable with attribution and the
  evidence shown.
• Uncorroborated: a single source. Keep it in the file, label it honestly, and never build
  another claim on top of it alone.
• Disputed: sources contradict each other. Present both sides, strongest evidence first, and
  name the contradiction instead of smoothing it over.
• Independence is the whole game: three outlets quoting the same press release is one source, not
  three. A subject's own claim repeated by ten outlets is still the subject's own claim. Count sources
  by origin, not by headline.
• For each claim, write the "steelman against": what's the most innocent explanation consistent
  with the evidence? If you can't articulate it, you haven't understood the evidence yet. Claims that
  survive their steelman are the ones worth keeping.

1. Gap Analysis (input: graded claims → output: unknowns ledger + fill plan)
   Write down what you still don't know — explicitly, in one ledger, no matter how embarrassing the
   gaps are. "Unknown: who authorized the payment." "Unknown: whether the second entity was ever
   registered." "Unknown: what the subject did between 2019 and 2021." For each gap, decide:

• Fillable by more collection: loop back to step 2 with a targeted search plan (which
  registry, which archive, which records request).
• Answerable only on the record: an interview request, a public-records/FOIA-style request, a
  direct question to the subject. Write the exact ask.
• Unanswerable from public sources: mark it as such and stop. Chasing unanswerable gaps is
  how investigations turn into conspiracy boards.
• An honest unknowns section is what separates a dossier from a hit piece. It also tells you when
  to stop: when the remaining gaps can't be filled legally or ethically, the dossier is done — and the
  gaps say so, in writing, instead of being quietly dropped.

1. Assembly (input: brief + inventory + timeline + claims + unknowns → output: the dossier)
   Assemble the file in this order, and don't improvise the structure — readers of dossiers
   (editors, lawyers, boards) expect to find things in the same place every time:

• Executive summary (one page): findings first, each with its confidence grade, then the
  one-paragraph bottom line. If the reader stops here, they still know what you found and how sure you
  are.
• Question and method: what was asked, what was searched, what was excluded, and the revision
  history of the brief. Method transparency is what makes the findings checkable.
• Timeline: the spine of the file, source-marked, divergences flagged.
• Key findings: ordered by confidence (confirmed first), each claim with its evidence
  attached and its steelman-against noted.
• Unknowns ledger: the fill plan and the unanswerables, stated plainly.
• Source inventory: every source with a reliability note — primary document, subject's own
  statement, secondary reporting, single-source.
• Ethics statement: what was and wasn't used, and what the dossier cannot prove.
• Write findings as what the evidence supports — "records show X," not "X is guilty of Y."
  Adjectives are not evidence: if "shady," "explosive," or "bombshell" is doing the work, the evidence
  isn't.

Aperçu du modèle

Investigative Dossier Pack

Investigation brief

• Question (one precise sentence): […]
• Scope — people/entities involved: […]
• Time window: […]
• What "answered" looks like: […]
• Explicitly out of scope: […]

Evidence inventory

_Archive or screenshot anything that could be deleted — a claim with a dead link is uncorroborated._

Timeline

• [date] — [event] — source: […]
• [date] — [event] — source: […]
• ⚑ Divergence flagged: [public claim vs. record — dates, sources]

Claims register

• [Confirmed / Probable / Uncorroborated / Disputed]: [claim]
• Support: (1) […] (2) […]
• Note: […]
• […]: [claim]
• Support: […]

Le pack de compétence lui-même (SKILL.md + modèle) est rédigé en anglais.

Acheter le pack complet — $4.99 Pro — les 511 compétences