699 Gaps Analysis 9fc3e939

Gaps and Weaknesses Analysis

Analysis of the skill-research-process compared to repository best practices.

Identified Gaps

1. Missing Verification Protocol

Issue: CLAUDE.md requires mandatory verification before documenting any behavior/capability. The research process lacks verification checkpoints.

CLAUDE.md Requirement (lines ~195-240):

Before documenting ANY behavior, capability, or characteristic... The model MUST execute ALL of these steps: Read the Actual Source, Verify the Behavior, Cite Observations, Never Fabricate, Distinguish Assumption from Fact.

Fix Required: Add verification checkpoints between research stages.

2. Weak Citation Requirements

Issue: Citations mentioned but not enforced with the rigor CLAUDE.md demands.

CLAUDE.md Requirement:

Minimum 3 independent authoritative sources for major claims. Include line numbers when referencing code files. Execute test if behavior can be observed directly.

Fix Required: Add explicit citation format requirements and verification.

3. No Freshness Tracking

Issue: research-curator skill includes freshness tracking (next review dates). skill-research-process doesn't.

Fix Required: Add freshness metadata to generated skills.

4. Missing Anti-Hallucination Verification

Issue: research-and-compare skill has explicit anti-hallucination checkpoints. This skill lacks them.

Example from research-and-compare:

**Anti-hallucination verification**:
- [ ] I am NOT relying on training data for either methodology
- [ ] Every claim I will make can be cited to a source I read THIS SESSION
- [ ] If I don't have source material for a claim, I will NOT make that claim

Fix Required: Add anti-hallucination checkpoint before integration stage.

5. No Delegation Template Alignment

Issue: CLAUDE.md says "When invoking the Task tool, follow the Delegation Template in the agent-orchestration skill." Current prompts don't follow this.

Fix Required: Update agent prompts to follow delegation template format.

6. Missing Quality Gates

Issue: No checkpoints between stages to verify output quality.

Fix Required: Add quality verification steps:

• After categorization: verify categories are distinct
• After research: verify citations exist and links work
• Before integration: verify all categories completed

7. No Error Recovery

Issue: What happens when:

• MCP tools unavailable?
• Research agent fails or times out?
• Source documentation is incomplete?

Fix Required: Add error handling and fallback strategies.

8. Missing Integration with research-curator

Issue: skill-research-process creates skills from research, but doesn't connect to the existing ./research/ directory or research-curator workflow.

Opportunity: Could reuse research already gathered by research-curator.

9. No Skill Validation Step

Issue: References package_skill.py but doesn't specify validation criteria or how to interpret results.

Fix Required: Add explicit validation steps and success criteria.

Weaknesses

1. Over-reliance on MCP Tools

The skill assumes MCP tools are available. Needs explicit fallback to:

• WebFetch + WebSearch for discovery
• GitHub CLI (gh) for repository analysis
• Local clone + Read for code analysis

2. Vague Category Guidance

"Aim for 5-10 categories" is too vague. Needs criteria for:

• When to split vs combine categories
• Maximum category size
• Handling overlapping topics

3. No Progress Tracking

Long-running research with multiple parallel agents needs:

• Status checking mechanism
• Partial result handling
• Resume capability if interrupted

4. Missing Output Validation

No verification that:

• All TODO items were researched
• All index.md files have working links
• Reference files meet quality standards

Recommended Improvements Priority