132 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
132 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|