Gap Finder

gap-finder

Purpose

Identify unresolved questions, weak evidence areas, contradictions, and underexplored spaces.

Trigger this skill when

• You are doing literature review, related work, comparative research, or evidence-driven design.
• The user needs structured research outputs instead of scattered notes or ad hoc summaries.
• You need traceable justification for claims, gaps, methods, or future directions.

Expected inputs

• theme map
• screened sources
• research goal
• known practical constraints

Deliverables

• gap list
• gap rationale
• candidate opportunity statements

Operating procedure

1. Clarify the research objective, boundary, and decision the output is meant to support.
2. Distinguish source evidence from inference, synthesis, or speculation.
3. Produce the skill-specific artifact in a structured, reusable form.
4. Preserve source-to-theme, theme-to-gap, or claim-to-evidence traceability where relevant.
5. Recommend the next best handoff instead of collapsing the whole literature workflow into one output.

Quality gates

• The output is scoped to the actual research question rather than generic background.
• Contradictions, uncertainties, and evidence limitations are surfaced explicitly.
• The structure is reusable in a report, review, appendix, or research memo.
• The synthesis adds value beyond a paper-by-paper summary.

Handoff targets

• future-work-generator
• critical-analysis-writer
• methodology-comparer

Output style

• Prefer matrices, theme groupings, claim-evidence structures, and explicit comparison criteria.
• Keep facts, synthesis, and speculation distinct.
• Preserve traceability from conclusions back to sources or evidence buckets.
• Surface missing evidence and unresolved questions instead of smoothing them over.

Failure modes to avoid

• Do not confuse summary volume with analytical depth.
• Do not treat all sources as equally credible or equally relevant.
• Do not fabricate consensus where the literature is mixed or thin.
• Do not hide exclusion reasons, scope limits, or methodological weaknesses.