Search Strategist
Research skill, available on Zeplik
Search Strategist is a ready-to-run research skill on Zeplik. Use when a question must be answered by searching across multiple connected workplace sources (chat, email, drive, project tracker, CRM, wiki): decomposes it into per-source queries, translates syntax, ranks and dedupes results -- 'search everywhere for what we decided about X', 'find that doc, maybe in Slack'. Ask in plain language and Zeplik applies the skill's method for you inside the conversation, on whichever AI model you prefer.
The Search Strategist skill loads automatically when your request matches it, or you can invoke it directly by typing /search-strategy in any chat. It works with attachments, connectors, and any model that supports the task, so you get the same expert method every time without setting anything up.
What the Search Strategist skill can do
- Decompose one question into per-source search queries
- Translate filters into chat, wiki, and tracker query syntax
- Rank and dedupe results using query-type weighted scoring
- Ask targeted clarifying questions when a query is genuinely ambiguous
Try these prompts on Zeplik
Pick a prompt to open it in the Zeplik app. If you are not signed in yet, your prompt is waiting for you the moment you do.
How the Search Strategist skill works
Search Strategy
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
The core intelligence behind enterprise search. Transforms a single natural language question into parallel, source-specific searches and produces ranked, deduplicated results.
The Goal
Turn this:
"What did we decide about the API migration timeline?"
Into targeted searches across every connected source:
~~chat: "API migration timeline decision" (semantic) + "API migration" in:#engineering after:2025-01-01
~~knowledge base: semantic search "API migration timeline decision"
~~project tracker: text search "API migration" in relevant workspace
Then synthesize the results into a single coherent answer.
Query Decomposition
Step 1: Identify Query Type
Classify the user's question to determine search strategy:
| Query Type | Example | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Decision | "What did we decide about X?" | Prioritize conversations (~~chat, email), look for conclusion signals |
| Status | "What's the status of Project Y?" | Prioritize recent activity, task trackers, status updates |
| Document | "Where's the spec for Z?" | Prioritize Drive, wiki, shared docs |
| Person | "Who's working on X?" | Search task assignments, message authors, doc collaborators |
| Factual | "What's our policy on X?" | Prioritize wiki, official docs, then confirmatory conversations |
| Temporal | "When did X happen?" | Search with broad date range, look for timestamps |
| Exploratory | "What do we know about X?" | Broad search across all sources, synthesize |
Step 2: Extract Search Components
From the query, extract:
- Keywords: Core terms that must appear in results
- Entities: People, projects, teams, tools (use memory system if available)
- Intent signals: Decision words, status words, temporal markers
- Constraints: Time ranges, source hints, author filters
- Negations: Things to exclude
Step 3: Generate Sub-Queries Per Source
For each available source, create one or more targeted queries:
Prefer semantic search for:
- Conceptual questions ("What do we think about...")
- Questions where exact keywords are unknown
- Exploratory queries
Prefer keyword search for:
- Known terms, project names, acronyms
- Exact phrases the user quoted
- Filter-heavy queries (from:, in:, after:)
Generate multiple query variants when the topic might be referred to differently:
User: "Kubernetes setup"
Queries: "Kubernetes", "k8s", "cluster", "container orchestration"
Source-Specific Query Translation
~~chat
Semantic search (natural language questions):
query: "What is the status of project aurora?"
Keyword search:
query: "project aurora status update"
query: "aurora in:#engineering after:2025-01-15"
query: "from:<@UserID> aurora"
Filter mapping:
| Enterprise filter | ~~chat syntax |
|---|---|
from:sarah | from:sarah or from:<@USERID> |
in:engineering | in:engineering |
after:2025-01-01 | after:2025-01-01 |
before:2025-02-01 | before:2025-02-01 |
type:thread | is:thread |
type:file | has:file |
~~knowledge base (Wiki)
Semantic search — Use for conceptual queries:
descriptive_query: "API migration timeline and decision rationale"
Keyword search — Use for exact terms:
query: "API migration"
query: "\"API migration timeline\"" (exact phrase)
~~project tracker
Task search:
text: "API migration"
workspace: [workspace_id]
completed: false (for status queries)
assignee_any: "me" (for "my tasks" queries)
Filter mapping:
| Enterprise filter | ~~project tracker parameter |
|---|---|
from:sarah | assignee_any or created_by_any |
after:2025-01-01 | modified_on_after: "2025-01-01" |
type:milestone | resource_subtype: "milestone" |
Result Ranking
Relevance Scoring
Score each result on these factors (weighted by query type):
| Factor | Weight (Decision) | Weight (Status) | Weight (Document) | Weight (Factual) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keyword match | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Freshness | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Authority | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Completeness | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Authority Hierarchy
Depends on query type:
For factual/policy questions:
Wiki/Official docs > Shared documents > Email announcements > Chat messages
For "what happened" / decision questions:
Meeting notes > Thread conclusions > Email confirmations > Chat messages
For status questions:
Task tracker > Recent chat > Status docs > Email updates
Handling Ambiguity
When a query is ambiguous, prefer asking one focused clarifying question over guessing:
Ambiguous: "search for the migration"
→ "I found references to a few migrations. Are you looking for:
1. The database migration (Project Phoenix)
2. The cloud migration (AWS → GCP)
3. The email migration (Exchange → O365)"
Only ask for clarification when:
- There are genuinely distinct interpretations that would produce very different results
- The ambiguity would significantly affect which sources to search
Do NOT ask for clarification when:
- The query is clear enough to produce useful results
- Minor ambiguity can be resolved by returning results from multiple interpretations
Fallback Strategies
When a source is unavailable or returns no results:
- Source unavailable: Skip it, search remaining sources, note the gap
- No results from a source: Try broader query terms, remove date filters, try alternate keywords
- All sources return nothing: Suggest query modifications to the user
- Rate limited: Note the limitation, return results from other sources, suggest retrying later
Query Broadening
If initial queries return too few results:
Original: "PostgreSQL migration Q2 timeline decision"
Broader: "PostgreSQL migration"
Broader: "database migration"
Broadest: "migration"
Remove constraints in this order:
- Date filters (search all time)
- Source/location filters
- Less important keywords
- Keep only core entity/topic terms
Parallel Execution
Always execute searches across sources in parallel, never sequentially. The total search time should be roughly equal to the slowest single source, not the sum of all sources.
[User query]
↓ decompose
[~~chat query] [~~email query] [~~cloud storage query] [Wiki query] [~~project tracker query]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
(parallel execution)
↓
[Merge + Rank + Deduplicate]
↓
[Synthesized answer]
Zeplik output presentation
Present the final deliverable as a single polished artifact: clear headings, tables where the content is tabular, fenced code where it is code. Lead with the deliverable itself; keep process commentary to a single short line. If the skill produced multiple files or sections, end with a compact list of them with one-line purposes.
How to use the Search Strategist skill
Sign in to Zeplik
Create a free Zeplik account or sign in. New accounts start with free credits, so you can try the Search Strategist skill right away.
Describe your research task
Ask in plain language, or type /search-strategy to invoke the skill directly. Zeplik recognizes the Search Strategist skill and applies its method.
Review and refine the result
Zeplik returns a clear, structured answer. Ask follow-ups in the same chat to refine it or take the next step.
Source and credit
- Author
- Anthropic
- License
- Apache-2.0
Adapted from the open-source anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins project and tuned to run natively on Zeplik. View source on GitHub.
Frequently asked questions
- What is the Search Strategist skill?
- Search Strategist is a ready-to-run research skill on Zeplik. Use when a question must be answered by searching across multiple connected workplace sources (chat, email, drive, project tracker, CRM, wiki): decomposes it into per-source queries, translates syntax, ranks and dedupes results -- 'search everywhere for what we decided about X', 'find that doc, maybe in Slack'. Ask in plain language and Zeplik applies the skill's method for you inside the conversation, on whichever AI model you prefer.
- How do I use Search Strategist on Zeplik?
- Sign in to Zeplik and ask in plain language, or type /search-strategy in any chat to invoke it directly. The skill applies its method and returns a result you can refine in the same conversation.
- Which AI model does the Search Strategist skill use?
- Any model you choose. Zeplik works across every model in one chat, so the Search Strategist skill runs on your preferred model for the task.
- Where does the Search Strategist skill come from?
- The Search Strategist skill is adapted from the open-source anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins project (Apache-2.0) and tuned to run natively on Zeplik. The original source is linked on this page.
- How much does the Search Strategist skill cost?
- Using the skill is free to start. You only spend Zeplik credits when the assistant runs, and new accounts begin with free credits.
Related research skills
- Academic PublishingAcademic publishing workflows — citation/reference management, LaTeX research posters, and venue templates with submission requirements. Use for "manage citations" or "format for a venue / make a poster"; for the writing itself see research-writing.
- Bio Research ToolkitUse when running comp-bio workflows -- single-cell RNA-seq QC, scvi-tools deep models, nf-core pipelines, instrument-to-Allotrope conversion. Not for literature research (use deep-research).
- Cheminformatics ToolkitsCheminformatics and molecular modeling — RDKit/Datamol molecular handling, DeepChem molecular ML, COBRApy metabolic modeling, Pymatgen materials, matchms/pyOpenMS mass spectrometry. Use for "work with molecules/chemistry data"; for genomics see genomics-toolkits.
- Clinical WritingClinical and medical document generation — clinical decision-support docs, clinical/case reports (CARE guidelines), and focused treatment plans in LaTeX/PDF. Use for "write a clinical report/treatment plan/CDS doc"; for research manuscripts see research-writing.
- Competitive BriefUse for competitor research or a competitive analysis -- 'compare us against X', 'build a battlecard for sales', 'competitor Y just launched Z, what does it mean for us' -- producing a positioning/messaging comparison with gaps, opportunities, threats. Not for general market reports (use deep-research).
- Deep Research ReportsUse for a long, multi-step, sourced research report -- market analysis, competitive landscaping, literature review, due diligence: 'do deep research on X', 'write a full report with citations'. Plans, searches, and synthesizes autonomously. Not for a quick look-up or short synthesis (use research).
More on Zeplik
Try Search Strategist on Zeplik
Every model, one chat. Bring the Search Strategist skill into your next conversation and let the assistant do the work.