핵심 요약
스탠포드 대학의 STORM 방법론을 적용해 클로드의 조사 능력을 PHD급 연구팀 수준으로 올려주는 무료 스킬을 소개한다. 단일 프롬프트의 한계를 극복하기 위해 5가지 관점의 에이전트들이 서로의 맹점을 보완하며 연구를 진행한다. 1차 조사 후 팩트 체크와 검증 과정을 거쳐 신뢰할 수 있는 고품질 HTML 브리핑 보고서를 뽑아내는 방식이다.
주요 포인트
- 스탠포드 STORM 방법론은 피어 리뷰 테스트 결과 타 연구 방식 대비 25% 더 조직적인 글을 뽑아내는 것으로 검증됨.
- 실무자, 학자, 회의론자, 경제학자, 역사학자 등 5개의 고유한 페르소나 에이전트가 협업해 다각도로 자료를 털어옴.
- 교차 검증 시스템을 통해 잘못된 정보를 교정하거나 신뢰성 낮은 소스를 알아서 걸러낸 뒤 V2 보고서를 완성함.
- 클로드의 순정 기능인 딥 리서치(Deep Research) 결과물과 비교했을 때 출처 인용이 훨씬 풍부하고 보고서 구성도 압도적으로 탄탄함.
So Stanford has a research method called storm, which has actually been shown in peer-reviewed testing to produce articles 25% more organized than the next best method. So I put all of those storm principles into my own Claude skill, which I'm going to give you guys for completely free, and you end up with the result that looks like this. It is an HTML briefing that has been put together by five different perspectives of agents, and it has been verified. Meaning if I scroll down to the bottom, you can see that the different perspectives are giving analysis on each parts of the report. But at the very bottom, you can see that we have different sources that have been confirmed, corrected, or demoted. Meaning on the first pass, the briefing would have had information in here that just wasn't correct. But because our skill works in all this verification, on V2, we can have a lot more faith in this output. So the whole idea of storm is that instead of just shooting off one prompt and having one angle of research, we are utilizing a bunch of different angles. Because if you just send off one prompt to Claude, there's going to be a bunch of blind spots in that research plan. So storm utilizes these five perspectives. We've got a practitioner, an academic, a skeptic, an economist, and a historian. And each angle finds a hole that the other angles miss. And this whole idea of having different agents kind of like role-play their own personalities and their own, you know, backgrounds with different areas of expertise, is really, really beneficial. If you've seen other videos where I've talked about something like the roast skill, or how I like to use agent teams to basically be a council, it's really, really helpful to identify different perspectives and, like I said, find holes that the other angles are going to miss. And so let me just show you a real quick example of why that's so beneficial. So Claude code natively has a feature called deep research, which launched with the dynamic workflows. So if you come into Claude and you do a deep research command like this, you will basically be able to enter a research topic and it will spin up a dynamic workflow, which will kick off hundreds of agents in the background. I think in this example, there was 103 different agents running. So this will give you a pretty solid deep research report. As you can see here at the bottom, it didn't actually give me any output, it just internalized all that. So I said, "Where's the report?" It gave me this markdown file, which is decent, but it's really not that thorough, and there's not as many sources as we'd like. There's only two up here, and then there's a few more unconfirmed down here at the bottom, as well as some open questions. And then I took this exact prompt that I asked in the deep research, and I put it into a Storm skill. So, I said, "Hey, Storm research, do this." And it said, "Okay, cool. Here's the topic. I'm going to run the Storm pipeline now. I ran these five agents." As you can see, the practitioner, the academic, the skeptic, the economist, and the historian were converging all of that stuff together, we're seeing where they disagree, and then we're going to run six more agents, which are going to verify all those facts that you just found. Verification's done, and now you have this HTML report, which is consistently going to look like this every time with a 60-second summary key findings. And all of these key findings are also ranked by reliability. You can see right here, reliability high, nine out of 10. This one was supported by the academic and the skeptic, and it was challenged by the practitioner and the economist. And it goes like this throughout the rest of the entire HTML report here. It also calls out the assumption that this briefing rests on and the missing six lens. All five lenses look at the firm from the owner's chair, adoption rates, productivity, ROI. None of them sat in the seat of the customer or the frontline employee. So, that's the missing sixth lens here, and I would then just say, "Okay, cool. Spin up that sixth lens, and run a V3 of this HTML report." And then it gives us really practical takeaways here. And what's cool about this is compared to something like the deep research, which is just going to basically give you a brain dump of a bunch of stats it found, the Storm research can really be tailored towards you. You can go into the skill and say, "Hey, here's what I'm doing. Here's my business. Here's what our goals are." Every time you run a Storm research report, make it tailored towards us, you know, what do we actually want to do differently now that you've understood all of this new data and research. And so, in this specific example with the deep research and the Storm, I put this into Codex, so a completely different AI model, and I said, "Hey, which one's better?" And it came back and said the HTML briefing is better. It's got better evidence quality, it's much stronger, it