Investigative Dossier

公開された断片から全体像を組み立てます。

公開情報から調査ドシエを構築します。OSINTの収集、タイムラインの構築、情報源の三角測量、お金の流れの追跡を行い、倫理的なガードレール（公開情報のみ、ハッキングなし）を備えます。ジャーナリスト、研究者、デューデリジェンスアナリストのためのものです。

こんな方におすすめ

ジャーナリスト、研究者、アナリスト、強烈な好奇心を持つ方

所要時間

ドシエごとに約1時間

レベル

上級

3ステップでインストール

登録不要。CLIツールも不要です。お使いのAIを選んで、1行コピーして貼るだけです。

Pro — 全511件のスキル

ご自分で入れたい場合は、スキルを購入（$4.99）し、購入完了画面からZIPをダウンロードして、上のディレクトリに展開し、AIのセッションを再起動してください。結果は同じです。すでに購入済みの場合は、AIアシスタントにダウンロードしてもらうこともできます。

パックの内容

SKILL.md（手順書）1点とスターターテンプレート1点が入っています。プレビューはこちらです：

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.