# Evidence Synthesizer > Assemble verified evidence bundles into a structured research brief with confidence-tagged findings, evidence maps, and explicit gap reporting. Use when atomic claims have been investigated and need to be synthesized into a coherent, honest, user-facing research output with auditable confidence assessments. - Skill: `npbuilds/evidence-synthesizer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add npbuilds/evidence-synthesizer` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/npbuilds/evidence-synthesizer/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: npbuilds (https://skillmd.com/u/npbuilds) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/npbuilds/evidence-synthesizer --- # Evidence Synthesizer — The Assembler Take the evidence bundles from source-triangulator and weave them into a single research brief that is both scannable and auditable. Every finding gets a confidence tag. Every gap gets named. The user should be able to read the Key Findings in 30 seconds or trace any claim back to its source chain in 3 minutes. ## How to Run ### Input From the Spelunker orchestrator: - All evidence bundles from source-triangulator (one per atomic claim) - The original question and claim decomposition from claim-decomposer - The depth mode used for this investigation (quick / standard / deep) — required for overall confidence assessment - The confidence framework (read `../spelunker/references/confidence-framework.md`) ### Steps #### Step 1 — Finalize Confidence Tags Review each evidence bundle's preliminary confidence tag against the confidence framework criteria: 1. **Verify tag criteria are strictly met.** The triangulator assigns preliminary tags — the synthesizer is the quality gate. 2. **Respect confidence ceilings.** If the triangulator flagged a ceiling (from upstream dependencies), enforce it. A claim's final tag cannot exceed its ceiling. 3. **Apply aggregation rules.** If the overall conclusion depends on multiple claims, the conclusion's confidence cannot exceed the weakest critical claim. Use the decomposer's priority field to identify which claims are critical (load-bearing) vs. supporting vs. contextual. 4. **Check for cross-claim interactions.** Does evidence from one claim affect the confidence of another? (e.g., if a premise is downgraded, conclusions depending on it must also be downgraded) 5. **Document the reasoning.** Every tag gets a because-clause: "Tagged [level] because [specific criteria met/not met, with evidence counts]." **Post-adversarial re-assessment:** The synthesizer may be called a second time after Phase 5 (adversarial pass) downgrades claims. When re-invoked: - Accept the updated confidence tags - Re-run the overall confidence assessment (Step 4) - Update the evidence map to reflect adversarial findings - Add a "Post-Adversarial Changes" note documenting what changed and why #### Step 2 — Build the Evidence Map Construct the provenance chain for each finding: ``` Finding → Atomic Claim → Evidence → Source Example: "Creatine is safe for long-term use in healthy adults" ← Claim #2: Creatine monohydrate is safe at 5g/day for 1+ years ← Evidence: 3 independent sources agree ← Source A: [Study, Tier 1, 2019] ← Source B: [Meta-analysis, Tier 1, 2021] ← Source C: [Institutional review, Tier 1, 2023] ← Independence verified: Different research groups, different methodologies ← Adversarial check: No credible contradicting evidence found → Confidence: Confirmed ``` The evidence map must be traceable — any reader should be able to follow from the finding back to the original source. #### Step 3 — Compile Gaps and Limitations Aggregate all limitations from the evidence bundles into a single section: **Categories of gaps:** 1. **Unanswered claims** — atomic claims that could not be verified (tagged Unverifiable) 2. **Access limitations** — paywalled sources, inaccessible databases, rate-limited tools 3. **Evidence quality gaps** — claims where only low-tier sources were available 4. **Scope limitations** — aspects of the original question that fell outside available evidence 5. **Temporal limitations** — evidence that may be outdated, or rapidly evolving areas where currency is uncertain 6. **Tool limitations** — specific capabilities that were unavailable (e.g., no access to specialized databases) **For each gap, state:** - What is missing - Why it matters (how would it change the conclusion if the gap were filled?) - What would resolve it (a specific database, study type, or expert consultation) #### Step 4 — Assess Overall Confidence Synthesize a meta-assessment of the investigation quality: - How many claims were Confirmed vs. Likely vs. Speculative vs. Contested vs. Unverifiable? - Did the adversarial self-check find significant counterevidence? - Were there significant access or tool limitations? - **What depth mode was used?** (This caps the overall confidence — see below) - How confident should the user be in acting on these findings? **Overall confidence levels:** - **High confidence:** Majority of critical claims are Confirmed, no Contested claims, adversarial check passed. **Requires standard or deep mode.** Quick mode cannot achieve High confidence regardless of claim tags. - **Moderate confidence:** Mix of Confirmed and Likely, no unresolved Contested claims, minor gaps. This is the ceiling for quick-mode investigations. - **Low confidence:** Critical claims are Speculative or Contested, significant gaps, limited source access - **Insufficient evidence:** Too many Unverifiable claims to draw a conclusion — state this clearly rather than forcing an answer **Depth-mode qualifier:** Include the depth-mode qualifier from the confidence framework in the brief header. The user must always know whether adversarial verification was performed. #### Step 5 — Format the Research Brief Read `references/synthesis-templates.md` for the exact output format. Assemble the final output with these sections in order: 1. **Header** — Question, depth mode, date 2. **Key Findings** — The scannable summary (30-second read) 3. **Detailed Findings** — Each claim with full evidence chain (3-minute deep dive) 4. **Evidence Map** — Visual provenance chains 5. **Gaps & Limitations** — What wasn't found and why it matters 6. **Confidence Summary** — Aggregate assessment 7. **Sources** — Numbered, ranked by relevance and authority 8. **Next Steps** — What to investigate further if the user needs more #### Step 5b — Citation Audit (REQUIRED before delivery) Before returning the brief to Spelunker Phase 6, run a citation audit. The brief is incomplete if any of the following fail: 1. **Every empirical claim has an inline `[N]` citation marker.** Walk every paragraph of Key Findings and Detailed Findings. For each sentence that asserts a fact, statistic, attribution, or named entity, verify that an `[N]` marker is attached. If a claim has no defensible source, downgrade it to Speculative and append `[no source]` rather than silently dropping the marker. 2. **Every confidence tag is paired with a because-clause.** "Confirmed" alone is not acceptable. 3. **The SOURCES section is a numbered list with full identifiers.** Each entry contains number, title, URL or DOI, publication date, tier, and which findings it was used for. Bullet-formatted sources are not acceptable. 4. **Inaccessible sources are still cited.** If a source was paywalled or unretrievable, cite it with the best available identifier (DOI, archive link, author/title) and mark `[paywalled]` or `[archived]`. Never silently drop a citation because the URL didn't load. 5. **Citation numbers match between body and SOURCES.** No orphaned `[N]` markers and no SOURCES entries that aren't cited in the body (the latter become "Background reading" if you want to retain them). If audit fails, return the brief to Step 5 and complete the citations before re-attempting delivery. This is the discipline that makes Spelunker briefs auditable rather than authoritative-sounding. #### Step 6 — Persistence (optional) If the user wants this output persisted to their Obsidian vault, call `vault-writer` (`infrastructure/vault-writer`) with the brief as a `type: note` artifact and the relevant `target_domain`, `slug`, and `tags`. Pass `companion_source_path` if the full output should also be archived to `Raw/`. The vault-writer integrity report will list any unresolved wikilinks the caller should address (either by linking to existing notes or by leaving as known skill-library refs). When invoked standalone (not from spelunker), the synthesizer can call vault-writer directly. ### Output A complete research brief formatted per `references/synthesis-templates.md`. The brief is self-contained — a reader should be able to understand the findings, assess their reliability, and identify what remains unknown without needing any additional context. ## Error Handling **All claims are Unverifiable:** Do not produce a research brief with false conclusions. State clearly that the available tools and sources are insufficient to answer the question. Suggest alternative approaches (specific databases, expert consultation, primary research). **Evidence bundles are inconsistent:** If the triangulator's evidence bundles contain internal contradictions (supporting the claim in one search, contradicting it in another), flag this as Contested rather than silently resolving it. **Original question cannot be answered from the evidence:** State this explicitly. The evidence may answer a related but different question — present what CAN be concluded, clearly distinguish it from the original question, and identify the gap. **Depth mode was insufficient:** If synthesis reveals the topic is more complex than the selected depth mode can handle, recommend the user re-run at a deeper level. Note which specific claims need more investigation.