108 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
108 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: document-triage
|
|
description: Scope a document research task, prioritize sources, and define an evidence-driven reading plan
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
compatibility: opencode
|
|
metadata:
|
|
audience: analysts
|
|
workflow: research
|
|
stage: triage
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## What I do
|
|
|
|
- Define the research objective in precise terms
|
|
- Break the task into answerable sub-questions
|
|
- Identify which documents are likely primary, secondary, or low-value
|
|
- Propose a reading order based on expected relevance
|
|
- Highlight likely evidence types such as requirements, decisions, risks, assumptions, and timelines
|
|
- Create a focused plan before deep reading begins
|
|
|
|
## When to use me
|
|
|
|
Use this skill at the start of a document-based research task.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
- You have a folder of policies, specs, meeting notes, or reports and need a systematic approach
|
|
- You need to answer a question using internal documentation
|
|
- You need to map a large corpus before extracting evidence
|
|
- You want to avoid reading everything in full
|
|
|
|
## Inputs I expect
|
|
|
|
Provide as many of these as available:
|
|
|
|
- Research goal or question
|
|
- List of documents, filenames, or brief descriptions
|
|
- Any constraints such as deadline, topic boundaries, time period, or required output
|
|
- Any known "must-cover" documents
|
|
- Preferred output format if already defined
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
1. Restate the research objective in one sentence
|
|
2. Convert the objective into focused sub-questions
|
|
3. Classify available documents by likely value:
|
|
- Primary source
|
|
- Supporting source
|
|
- Background source
|
|
- Likely irrelevant
|
|
4. Identify expected signal in each source:
|
|
- Requirements
|
|
- Decisions
|
|
- Responsibilities
|
|
- Risks
|
|
- Dates or milestones
|
|
- Definitions
|
|
- Exceptions
|
|
5. Recommend an efficient reading order
|
|
6. Define extraction criteria for the next stage
|
|
7. Flag ambiguities, missing sources, and review risks
|
|
|
|
## Output format
|
|
|
|
Produce these sections:
|
|
|
|
### Research Objective
|
|
A single concise statement of the exact question to answer.
|
|
|
|
### Sub-questions
|
|
A numbered list of focused questions the research should resolve.
|
|
|
|
### Source Triage
|
|
For each document:
|
|
- Document name
|
|
- Classification
|
|
- Why it matters
|
|
- What to look for
|
|
|
|
### Reading Plan
|
|
A prioritized reading sequence with rationale.
|
|
|
|
### Extraction Criteria
|
|
A checklist of evidence worth capturing in the next phase.
|
|
|
|
### Risks and Gaps
|
|
Explicitly list missing documents, unclear scope, and likely blind spots.
|
|
|
|
## Quality bar
|
|
|
|
- Be specific, not generic
|
|
- Prefer primary documents over commentary
|
|
- Do not assume a document is authoritative unless the user says so
|
|
- Separate fact-finding from interpretation
|
|
- Explicitly note what cannot be determined yet
|
|
|
|
## Do not
|
|
|
|
- Do not summarize the documents in depth at this stage
|
|
- Do not invent document contents
|
|
- Do not claim conclusions before evidence extraction
|
|
- Do not merge assumptions with facts
|
|
|
|
## Hand-off to companion skills
|
|
|
|
After this skill, use:
|
|
- `evidence-extraction` to pull structured findings
|
|
- `research-synthesis` to produce a final answer, brief, matrix, or report
|