agentic/.opencode/skills/research-synthesis/SKILL.md

name, description, license, compatibility, metadata

name	description	license	compatibility	metadata
research-synthesis	Synthesize extracted document evidence into a clear, traceable conclusion, brief, or decision-ready report	MIT	opencode	audience workflow stage analysts research 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.