first commit

2026-06-10 08:20:27 +02:00
commit f439f0f793
39 changed files with 9716 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+---
+name: research-synthesis
+description: Synthesize extracted document evidence into a clear, traceable conclusion, brief, or decision-ready report
+license: MIT
+compatibility: opencode
+metadata:
+  audience: analysts
+  workflow: research
+  stage: synthesis
+---
+
+## What I do
+
+- Synthesize extracted evidence into a coherent answer
+- Build conclusions that remain traceable to source material
+- Identify consensus, conflicts, gaps, and unresolved questions
+- Produce outputs such as briefs, summaries, comparison matrices, decision memos, and research reports
+- Keep factual findings separate from recommendations or interpretation
+
+## When to use me
+
+Use this after evidence has been extracted and structured.
+
+Examples:
+- You need a final answer to a document-based research question
+- You need an executive summary grounded in source material
+- You need a position paper or internal brief
+- You need a gap analysis or comparison across documents
+- You need a recommendation with explicit evidence support
+
+## Inputs I expect
+
+Provide:
+- Research objective
+- Extracted evidence table or notes
+- Optional comparison table
+- Desired output type, such as:
+  - summary
+  - brief
+  - memo
+  - report
+  - gap analysis
+  - comparison matrix
+  - recommendation
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Restate the question being answered
+2. Group evidence by theme or sub-question
+3. Identify:
+   - Supported conclusions
+   - Partial support
+   - Contradictions
+   - Missing evidence
+4. Draft findings with explicit traceability
+5. Separate:
+   - Facts from documents
+   - Interpretation
+   - Recommendations
+6. Produce a final structured output fit for the requested audience
+7. End with known limitations and review points
+
+## Output modes
+
+### A) Research Brief
+Use for concise decision support.
+
+Structure:
+- Question
+- Short answer
+- Key findings
+- Conflicting evidence
+- Gaps
+- Recommended next step
+
+### B) Research Report
+Use for fuller analytical output.
+
+Structure:
+- Objective
+- Scope
+- Method
+- Findings by theme
+- Evidence-backed conclusion
+- Known gaps and limitations
+- Appendix with source references
+
+### C) Gap Analysis
+Use when comparing required versus documented state.
+
+Structure:
+- Assessment topic
+- Evidence found
+- Gap
+- Impact
+- Confidence
+- Review needed
+
+## Traceability rule
+
+For every substantive conclusion, include a source anchor such as:
+- document name
+- section or page
+- extracted finding number if available
+
+If traceability is weak, say so explicitly.
+
+## Quality bar
+
+- Conclusions must follow from the extracted evidence
+- Contradictions must be surfaced, not hidden
+- Distinguish "document says" from "my recommendation"
+- State limits of the available corpus
+- Prefer precise wording over polished vagueness
+
+## Do not
+
+- Do not introduce facts that were not extracted
+- Do not overclaim certainty
+- Do not bury disagreements between documents
+- Do not produce recommendations without showing the evidence basis
+- Do not omit limitations
+
+## Companion skill sequence
+
+Recommended sequence:
+1. `document-triage`
+2. `evidence-extraction`
+3. `research-synthesis`
+
+Use all three together for rigorous document-based research with clear traceability.