A search returns an answer. Seine returns the truth.

21 AI agents. Gated pipeline. Calibrated confidence.
seinesearch.com

---

A single AI search gives you one angle, one framing, and zero adversarial pressure. You have no way to know if the finding would survive basic scrutiny. Seine coordinates 21 specialized agents across a gated pipeline so that every claim is discovered, challenged, resolved, red-teamed, and confidence-scored before it reaches you.

No dependencies. No API keys. No shell scripts. Runs entirely inside Claude Code or Claude Cowork using built-in tools.

Quick Start

# Install
/plugin marketplace add adambkovacs/seine-agentic-search-orchestrator-plugin
/plugin install seine

# Run
/seine:seine-search "Impact of EU AI Act on startups" dig

---

What a Report Looks Like

A drill-depth run on EU AI Act produced this (abridged):

# EU AI Act vs US AI Regulation: Comparative analysis

> Pipeline: drill | 4 search rounds | 34 sources | 7 council members
> Evidence: SOLID (verified) | SOFT (single source) | SHAKY (weak) | UNKNOWN

The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into four risk tiers [1] [Source-Critic: SOLID]:
unacceptable (banned outright), high-risk (strict compliance), limited (transparency
obligations), and minimal (no specific rules).

The EU AI Act's GPAI 10^25 FLOPs threshold operates as a rebuttable presumption,
not a hard ceiling, but the adversarial reviewer found that the inverse burden of
proof makes practical rebuttal difficult. [4] [Adversarial: SOFT]

The Trump executive order's claim to preempt state AI laws was downgraded from SOFT
to SHAKY by the adversarial reviewer. The EO lacks self-executing legal authority. [6] [9]

## Sources & References
| # | Title | Trust | Cited By |
|---|-------|-------|----------|
| 1 | EUR-Lex: Regulation 2024/1689 | HIGH | hunter, skeptic, referee |
| 2 | EU AI Office: Implementation Timeline | HIGH | hunter, scout |

## Confidence Summary
| Claim | Label | Sources | Score |
|-------|-------|---------|-------|
| 4-tier risk classification | SOLID | 8 | 0.92 |
| No US federal comprehensive AI law | SOLID | 5 | 0.87 |
| Trump EO federal preemption | SHAKY | 3 | 0.34 |

Every claim carries a [N] source link. Council members who challenged a finding are cited inline with their evidence label.

---

How It Works

Depth Activation

%%{init: {'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2D3748', 'primaryTextColor': '#E2E8F0', 'lineColor': '#718096'}}}%%
graph LR
  skim["<b>skim</b><br/>Route + Fuse"] --> scan["<b>scan</b><br/>Triage Gate"]
  scan --> dig["<b>dig</b><br/>Council R1/R2"]
  dig --> drill["<b>drill</b><br/>Research Pipeline"]
  drill --> siege["<b>siege</b><br/>Multi-round Convergence"]

  style skim fill:#F6E05E,color:#1A202C,stroke:#D69E2E
  style scan fill:#FC8181,color:#1A202C,stroke:#E53E3E
  style dig fill:#63B3ED,color:#1A202C,stroke:#3182CE
  style drill fill:#B794F4,color:#1A202C,stroke:#805AD5
  style siege fill:#F687B3,color:#1A202C,stroke:#D53F8C

Loading

Research Pipeline Phases

%%{init: {'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2D3748', 'primaryTextColor': '#E2E8F0', 'primaryBorderColor': '#4A5568', 'lineColor': '#718096'}}}%%
graph LR
  subgraph Phase_A["Phase A: Discovery"]
    hunter["hunter"]
    scout["scout"]
  end

  subgraph Gate_A["Gate A"]
    val_a["validator"]
  end

  subgraph Phase_B["Phase B: Analysis"]
    skeptic["skeptic"]
    referee["referee"]
  end

  subgraph Gate_B["Gate B"]
    val_b["validator"]
  end

  subgraph Phase_C["Phase C: Synthesis"]
    adversarial["adversarial-reviewer"]
    confidence["confidence-quantifier"]
  end

  hunter --> val_a
  scout --> val_a
  val_a -->|PASS| skeptic
  val_a -->|PASS| referee
  val_a -->|FAIL| stop_a["Pipeline Stops"]
  skeptic --> val_b
  referee --> val_b
  val_b -->|PASS| adversarial
  val_b -->|PASS| confidence
  val_b -->|FAIL| stop_b["Pipeline Stops"]

  style Phase_A fill:#2D3748,stroke:#F6E05E,color:#E2E8F0
  style Gate_A fill:#2D3748,stroke:#FC8181,color:#E2E8F0
  style Phase_B fill:#2D3748,stroke:#63B3ED,color:#E2E8F0
  style Gate_B fill:#2D3748,stroke:#FC8181,color:#E2E8F0
  style Phase_C fill:#2D3748,stroke:#B794F4,color:#E2E8F0
  style stop_a fill:#FC8181,color:#1A202C
  style stop_b fill:#FC8181,color:#1A202C

Loading

Council: 7 Cognitive Perspectives

%%{init: {'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2D3748', 'primaryTextColor': '#E2E8F0', 'lineColor': '#718096'}}}%%
graph TD
  Query((Query))
  Query --> Synthesizer["Synthesizer<br/><small>Integration + Big-picture</small>"]
  Query --> Contrarian["Contrarian<br/><small>Stress-test + Prove it</small>"]
  Query --> Lateral["Lateral Hunter<br/><small>Adjacent domains + Analogies</small>"]
  Query --> Source["Source Critic<br/><small>Provenance + Authority + Bias</small>"]
  Query --> Pattern["Pattern Spotter<br/><small>Trends + Correlations</small>"]
  Query --> Blind["Blind Spot<br/><small>Missing perspectives</small>"]
  Query --> Temporal["Temporal<br/><small>Emerging / Peaking / Declining</small>"]

  Synthesizer --> Synthesis{{"Synthesis<br/>pass / flag"}}
  Contrarian --> Synthesis
  Lateral --> Synthesis
  Source --> Synthesis
  Pattern --> Synthesis
  Blind --> Synthesis
  Temporal --> Synthesis

  style Query fill:#3182CE,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2B6CB0
  style Synthesizer fill:#2B6CB0,color:#FFFFFF
  style Contrarian fill:#C53030,color:#FFFFFF
  style Lateral fill:#D69E2E,color:#1A202C
  style Source fill:#2F855A,color:#FFFFFF
  style Pattern fill:#6B46C1,color:#FFFFFF
  style Blind fill:#9B2C2C,color:#FFFFFF
  style Temporal fill:#2F855A,color:#FFFFFF
  style Synthesis fill:#2D3748,color:#E2E8F0,stroke:#718096

Loading

---

Features

Search	4 domains (web, academic, OSINT, social), Reciprocal Rank Fusion, 5 depth levels, boolean query construction, counter-evidence generation
Council	7-member deliberative council, triage gate (3 agents), multi-round deliberation (R1 + R2)
Research	3-phase gated pipeline (Discovery, Analysis, Synthesis), 7 research agents, validation gates that stop on FAIL
Output	Mandatory source tables with trust tiers, inline citations, confidence scores per claim, anti-slop humanizer (90%+ quality gate), interactive HTML dossier with Chart.js visualizations
OSINT	13 query patterns for SEC/EDGAR, OpenCorporates, Wikidata, LittleSis, OFAC, FEC, CompaniesHouse, CANDID, court records, patents, news, sanctions, property (all via WebSearch with site: targeting, no API keys)

Installation

Claude Code (Marketplace):

/plugin marketplace add adambkovacs/seine-agentic-search-orchestrator-plugin
/plugin install seine

Claude Cowork: Search the marketplace for seine or add by repo URL: adambkovacs/seine-agentic-search-orchestrator-plugin

Manual install: Clone this repo and copy agents/seine-*.md to .claude/agents/, agents/seine-kb/ to .claude/agents/seine-kb/, and each skills/seine-*/SKILL.md to .claude/skills/seine-*/SKILL.md.

Usage & Depth Guide

Three Skills

Skill	Purpose	Depth
/seine:seine-search	Multi-domain search with triage	Any (skim to siege)
/seine:seine-council	Deliberative council analysis	dig+
/seine:seine-research	Full phased research pipeline	drill+
/seine:seine-render	Generate interactive HTML dossier from artifacts	Any (post-pipeline)

Depth Guide

Depth	Best For	Agents	Time
skim	Quick fact checks	0	~30s
scan	Surface-level overview	3 (triage)	~1-2min
dig	Thorough analysis	10 (triage + council)	~3-5min
drill	Deep investigation	17 (+ research)	~8-15min
siege	Exhaustive research	20 (all, multi-round)	~20-40min

Examples

# Quick scan
/seine:seine-search "Latest transformer architecture papers" scan

# Council deliberation for decisions
/seine:seine-council "Should we adopt GraphQL over REST for our API?"

# Deep research with full pipeline
/seine:seine-research "State of open-source LLMs for enterprise deployment"

Use Cases

• Regulatory compliance (drill/siege): Multi-jurisdiction analysis with enforcement timelines, penalty structures, and carve-outs. OSINT patterns pull from official registries.
• Competitive intelligence (dig/drill): Cross-references vendor claims against independent sources. Source Critic + Contrarian separate marketing from reality.
• Due diligence (drill/siege): Entity research across EDGAR, OpenCorporates, LittleSis, OFAC, FEC, court records, Wikidata, and more, all in parallel.
• Technical architecture decisions (dig/drill): Trade-off analysis with Lateral Hunter finding analogous decisions in adjacent fields.
• Academic literature review (drill): arXiv + DBLP simultaneously, Skeptic surfaces null results and replication failures alongside confirmatory findings.
• Fact-checking (dig/drill): Negation queries, per-source confidence tables, Blind Spot asks who is absent from the analysis.
• Market entry (siege): Multi-round convergence across all domains. Full auditable artifact directory.
• Grant/proposal research (drill): Evidence base with confidence labels, surfaces counter-evidence the proposal should address.

Skills Reference (3 skills)

seine-search - Multi-domain search with triage

Routes a query to 2-4 domains, dispatches in parallel, fuses with Reciprocal Rank Fusion, runs triage. At dig+ writes artifacts and calls downstream skills.

/seine:seine-search <query> [depth]

Depth	What runs	Artifacts
skim	Route + fuse only	No
scan	+ 3 triage agents	No
dig	+ Full council (7 members)	Yes
drill	+ Research pipeline	Yes
siege	+ Research with Opus, multi-round	Yes

seine-council - Deliberative council analysis

Runs 7 council specialists on search results. Each runs independently in R1. Synthesizer consolidates in R2. At dig+, targeted research fills gaps between rounds.

/seine:seine-council triage   <query> <results_json>
/seine:seine-council deliberate <query> <results_json>

Mode	Agents	When
triage	3 (completeness, quality, gaps)	Quick quality gate
deliberate	7 members + R2 synthesis	dig+

seine-research - Full phased research pipeline

Three-phase pipeline with validation gates. A FAIL stops immediately.

/seine:seine-research <query> [depth]

Depth	Model	Use when
drill	Sonnet	Standard deep research
siege	Opus	Maximum rigor

Phase A: hunter + scout → Gate A → Phase B: skeptic + referee → Gate B → Phase C: adversarial + confidence

All agents output the ADR-S007 schema: scope, findings, counter_evidence, confidence_table, gaps, sources.

See docs/ARCHITECTURE.md for full specs. See docs/EVIDENCE-VOCABULARY.md for the confidence formula.

Domains & Search Craft

Domains

Domain	Method	Targets
web	WebSearch	Any web content
academic	WebSearch + site: qualifiers	arXiv, DBLP, Semantic Scholar
osint	WebSearch + site: targeting	SEC/EDGAR, OpenCorporates, Wikidata, OFAC, etc.
social	WebSearch + platform targeting	Twitter/X, Reddit, LinkedIn

All OSINT queries use Claude Code's built-in WebSearch with site: restriction patterns. No external API keys or direct database connections.

Search Craft

Every query decomposes into three variants: direct query, angle shift, and counter-evidence query. Examples:

# Direct
"EU AI Act Article 4" site:eur-lex.europa.eu

# Angle shift (hiring signals instead of press releases)
"Delivery Hero" site:linkedin.com/jobs "machine learning"

# Counter-evidence
"Delivery Hero" "cost cutting" OR "layoffs" 2026

Multi-round search: Seine treats search as a spiral. Round 1 establishes baseline, Round 2 fills gaps, Round 3 challenges findings, Round 4 finds adjacent signals, Round 5 tracks temporal changes. At siege, this loops until convergence (capped at 10 rounds).

Source quality: Trust tiers assigned at query time: .gov and peer-reviewed = HIGH, Reuters/Bloomberg = MEDIUM-HIGH, industry reports = MEDIUM, Reddit/forums = LOW, anonymous = DISQUALIFIED.

See agents/seine-kb/SEARCH-CRAFT.md for the full query pattern library.

Evidence Vocabulary

Label	Meaning	Score
SOLID	Multiple independent sources, no contradictions	1.0
SOFT	Single credible source or indirect evidence	0.6
SHAKY	Single biased source or conflicting evidence	0.3
UNKNOWN	Insufficient evidence to assess	0.0

Confidence formula: (evidence x 0.40) + (source_quality x 0.25) + (recency x 0.20) + (agreement x 0.15)

Anti-hallucination (6 overlapping mechanisms):

1. Source Critic scrutinizes credibility before claims are built on sources
2. Contrarian + Skeptic construct the case against each finding with active counter-evidence searches
3. Referee issues binding verdicts on conflicts with explicit source quality comparisons
4. Adversarial Reviewer red-teams via 5-step protocol: steelman, attack, negate, fail scenarios, correct
5. Confidence Quantifier scores every claim on 4 dimensions
6. Pipeline gates stop the run if aggregate confidence falls below threshold

No single agent's judgment is trusted. Every claim must survive independent discovery, adversarial analysis, conflict resolution, red-team attack, and calibrated scoring.

Agents (20 total)

Category	Count	Agents
Orchestrator	1	researcher
Output	3	output-renderer, humanizer, report-renderer
Triage	3	completeness, quality, gaps
Council	7	synthesizer, contrarian, lateral-hunter, source-critic, pattern-spotter, blind-spot, temporal
Research	7	hunter, scout, skeptic, referee, validator, adversarial-reviewer, confidence-quantifier

Plus 2 knowledge base files and 4 skills.

Triage agents (3)

Run at scan+ in parallel after fusion. A single flag triggers additional search rounds or escalates to council.

Completeness checks whether all relevant domains were queried. Flags missing domains with a specific sub-query.

{ "agent": "completeness", "verdict": "flag",
  "reason": "Query is about SEC filings but 'osint' domain was not searched.",
  "action": { "type": "search_domain", "domain": "osint", "subquery": "Delivery Hero 10-K SEC annual report 2025" } }

Quality checks whether top results actually answer the query, not just match keywords.

{ "agent": "quality", "verdict": "flag",
  "reason": "Top 4 results are marketing blog summaries, not compliance guidance.",
  "action": { "type": "refine_query", "subquery": "EU AI Act SME obligations Article 9 compliance steps 2025" } }

Gaps identifies what is conspicuously absent. A flag routes directly to council deliberation (highest-stakes triage agent).

{ "agent": "gaps", "verdict": "flag",
  "reason": "All 8 results represent the vendor perspective. No regulator or civil society sources.",
  "action": { "type": "search_domain", "domain": "web", "subquery": "EU AI Act criticism civil society NGO response 2025" } }

Council agents (7)

All seven run in parallel at dig+. None sees another member's output. A flag triggers R2 with targeted research between rounds.

Member	Role
Contrarian	Assumes top result is wrong, builds the case against it. Only endorses after failing to break a claim.
Lateral Hunter	Searches adjacent fields. "AI compliance costs" -> checks pharma GMP compliance literature for validated SME cost models.
Blind Spot	Asks what nobody asked. Five absence types: population, time, discipline, scale, incentive.
Temporal	Maps trajectory over time. Classifies life stage (emerging/growing/peaking/declining). Flags stale results.
Source Critic	Checks bylines before content. Trust tier assignments feed directly into final confidence scores.
Pattern Spotter	"4 of 8 results cite X" (never "several results suggest"). Surfaces convergence and contradictions.
Synthesizer	Runs last. Finds the unifying thread, names the connecting principle in one sentence.

Research pipeline agents (8)

Three-phase sequence with validation gates. All agents in the same phase run in parallel.

Agent	Phase	Role
Hunter	A (Discovery)	Catalogs claims, clusters thematically, builds evidence_map
Scout	A (Discovery)	Reads low-ranked results for non-obvious signals, adjacent_signals, timing_triggers
Validator	Gates A/B	Schema check + confidence threshold (0.70 for A, 0.75 for B). Missing block = FAIL.
Skeptic	B (Analysis)	Tests claims by searching for counter-evidence. Classifies: survived/collapsed/weakened
Referee	B (Analysis)	Binding verdicts on conflicts. Source quality wins. Four verdicts: affirmed/rejected/qualified/indeterminate
Adversarial Reviewer	C (Synthesis)	5-step red-team: steelman, attack, negate, fail scenarios, correct
Confidence Quantifier	C (Synthesis)	Scores on 4 dimensions. Flags over-confidence and mechanical scoring.

Output agents (2)

Output Renderer: Transforms artifacts into prose with [N] citations, [Member: LABEL] attributions, Sources table, Work Log, Confidence Summary.

Humanizer: 5-tier anti-slop audit. Tier 1 violations (em dashes, emoji) cost 10 points each. Threshold: 90/100. Structured data is never touched.

Report Renderer: Reads pipeline JSON artifacts and produces a self-contained interactive HTML dossier (09-dossier.html) with Chart.js charts, confidence bars, evidence doughnuts, pipeline gantt, and auto-detected visualizations. Works offline, zero external dependencies. Handles partial pipelines (gate FAIL) gracefully.

Artifact Output

At dig+ every query creates a persistent artifact directory:

research/artifacts/{query-slug}-{date}/
├── 00-query.json              # Routing decision + domains selected
├── 01-search-rounds/          # Per-domain raw results
├── 02-fusion.json             # RRF-fused results with scores
├── 03-triage/                 # 3 triage verdicts
├── 04-council-r1/             # 7 council member outputs
├── 05-research/               # Research phase outputs + gates
├── 06-council-r2/             # R2 outputs (if run)
├── 07-sources.json            # Deduplicated master source list
├── 08-timeline.json           # Per-stage timing
└── 09-dossier.html            # Interactive HTML dossier with charts

Final rendered output: research/final/{slug}.md (prose) and 09-dossier.html (visual dossier with Chart.js)

Requirements & Updating

Requirement	Version
Claude Code	v1.0.33+
Claude Cowork	Any with plugin support
External dependencies	None
API keys	None

Update via marketplace:

/plugin update seine

Update manually:

cd /tmp/seine-plugin && git pull
# Re-copy agents, KB, and skills

---

Contributing

Contributions welcome. Please open an issue or pull request.

---

_{Built by Adam Kovacs}

MIT License