Choose the research shape
Every research workflow should preserve the input row, source URL or record ID,
reason a row passed or needs review, and the next system action. Research that
only produces prose is not ready for an automated destination.
Prerequisites
accounts.csvwith a stable account identifier and, preferably, a domain.- A definition of the evidence you want, such as a job post, product change, funding event, public record, or company page.
- A rule for what should be skipped, suppressed, or sent for human review.
Define the research contract
Give your coding agent this request. It asks for a local Play and makes the review boundary explicit:Validate it without deploying or spending credits
Once the agent has written the file, validate its source before it runs:plays check bundles and validates the local Play. It does not publish the
Play, create a run, or call a provider.
Run a representative pilot
Createaccounts-pilot.csv with the header and three representative accounts:
one likely match, one typical account, and one sparse or difficult account.
Review the pilot before you scale
For each returned row, check:- The evidence points to the correct account and supports the stated reason.
- A missing source is recorded as unresolved, not written as a confident claim.
- Suppressed or owned accounts did not become outreach candidates.
- The next action is appropriate for the evidence and has a clear reviewer.
- The observed Deepline-credit usage is acceptable for the full list.
Do not turn research output into outreach automatically. Review the evidence
and the action boundary first.