daftscientist/rostra

Recover the exact thing from messy clues, the hunts where the user cannot name what they are looking for: "that video where the guy...", a half-remembered repo, a product glimpsed once, a quote they cannot place, a site they lost and cannot re-find. Also the method for checking whether a seller, store, or too-good offer is legit before money or data moves. Use whenever the ask is a vague memory to pin down or a scam to sniff out, not a settled question with a nameable subject.

Reconstruct how something actually unfolded and trace claims to their origin: who started it, when, where it first appeared, how it spread and mutated across platforms, what the underlying receipts say, and whether a circulating claim is real, exaggerated, misattributed, or fabricated. Use for 'who started this', 'what actually happened with', 'is this claim real', 'where did this rumour come from', tracing a quote, video, screenshot, or controversy to its first appearance, and fact-checking viral posts with a timeline.

Research who a person, company, project, organisation or product actually is. Use for "who is X", "what do we know about them", due diligence before messaging, meeting, hiring, buying from, partnering with or investing in someone, and for "is this site, seller, or offer legit" checks. Identity and aliases come first, then official sites and primary accounts, then current role and status against stale mentions, then what they say, make, and what others say, with verified facts kept apart from inference and reputation. Dispatch deliberately: resolve before you search and finish in a structured brief.

Judge an open-source project before you bet on it: a library you are thinking of adopting, a dependency to keep or drop, "is X maintained or dead", "X vs Y" library choices, migrating from one project to another, or due diligence before adopting anything. Use whenever the question is whether a repo is healthy, abandoned, risky, or right for the job.

Deep research on any question worth real investigation: "is that actually true", a claim someone is reckoning, products or options to evaluate, events or situations to understand, decisions being weighed, "X vs Y", "is this still true", "should I build this", "how do I learn X", and will-it-happen questions. Multi-source, primary documents first, verification, comparisons, and a grounded verdict with inline source URLs on every claim. Also the method a dispatched clone follows for any research task. so small questions go to cheaper tools first.

Explain why something is blowing up: a trending topic, a viral claim, a name suddenly everywhere, 'why is everyone suddenly on about X', and whether the wave is real: confirmed vs speculation vs manufactured hype. Use for 'what is going on with', 'is this actually big or just my feed/circle', 'why is this everywhere', and any wave noticed on one platform that needs testing against the rest.

Find what different communities actually think of something: a product, company, tool, decision, or take. Use for "what do people think of X", "is X any good", "worth it?", reviews and reception, what a market or niche is complaining about, reading backlash to a launch, or mapping the communities that make up a niche. The ground is Reddit, Hacker News, X, Bluesky, Mastodon and YouTube comments, with news coverage as a separate lens. Everything is read-only, so read deliberately.

Turn video into usable knowledge, whether it is a single talk, a tutorial, a review, a course, a playlist, or a whole channel: what the video claims, what to actually do with it, and whether it still applies today. Use for "watch this for me", "summarize this video", "is this tutorial worth it", "is this still current", "check out this youtuber", "review this channel", or "turn this playlist into a course path". Also find a specific video or a youtuber and check them out before recommending.