| name | analyze-document |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze a document", "extract insights", "deep read", "what are the insights in this file", or wants more than a summary from a document. It reads a document and applies a structured analytical framework that surfaces non-obvious insights, tensions, actionable takeaways, and gaps — instead of producing a generic summary. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep |
Analyze Document
Purpose: Apply a structured analytical framework to any document, extracting non-obvious insights, tensions, actionable implications, and gaps — going far beyond a generic summary.
Usage
/analyze-document <file-path>
If no file path is provided, ask the user which document to analyze.
Instructions
Step 1: Read the Document
- Read the target document using the provided file path
- If the file has YAML frontmatter, note the
type field for document-type detection in Step 3
Step 2: Apply the Core Analysis Framework
Analyze the document using these four lenses. Present each as its own section with clear findings:
1. Non-Obvious Insights (3-5)
Identify things that aren't stated explicitly but can be inferred from the content. Skip anything the author already highlights as a key point. Look for:
- Patterns that emerge across sections
- Second-order implications of what's stated
- Connections the author doesn't draw explicitly
- What the emphasis or word choice reveals
2. Tensions and Contradictions
Find where the argument conflicts with itself, or with conventional wisdom. Look for:
- Internal inconsistencies between sections
- Optimistic claims paired with cautious caveats
- Goals that conflict with stated constraints
- Assumptions that contradict evidence presented
- What's left unresolved
3. The "So What" (Single Actionable Takeaway)
If a smart, busy person could only take away one actionable implication from this document, what would it be and why? Commit to a single, prioritized takeaway — not a list of equally weighted points.
4. What's Missing
What question does this document raise but never answer? What would a reader want to know next? Look for:
- Unstated assumptions the argument depends on
- Evidence that would strengthen or weaken the claims
- Perspectives or stakeholders not represented
- Follow-up questions the document creates but doesn't address
Step 3: Apply Document-Type Modifier
Based on the frontmatter type field or the document's content, add one additional analytical lens:
| Document Type | Additional Analysis |
|---|
meeting-notes, transcripts | Implicit decisions: What decision was implicitly made but never explicitly confirmed? What did everyone seem to agree on without anyone formally stating it? |
research, academic papers | Methodological assumptions: Flag any methodological choices that could meaningfully change the conclusions if done differently. What assumptions are baked into the approach? |
project, design-document, implementation-plan, strategy docs | Unstated dependencies: Identify the strongest unstated assumption this plan depends on. What must be true for this to succeed that nobody is questioning? |
policy, rfc, adr | Edge cases and failure modes: What scenarios would this policy/decision handle poorly? Where are the boundaries undefined? |
| News articles, industry reports | Narrative framing: What narrative is this constructing, and what facts would complicate or undermine it? |
| General / undetected | Skip the modifier — the core four lenses are sufficient. |
If the document type is ambiguous, make a best guess based on content and note the assumption.
Step 4: Suggest Follow-Up Directions
After the analysis, suggest 2-3 specific follow-up questions the user could ask to drill deeper, such as:
- "Tell me more about tension #2"
- "What evidence would validate insight #3?"
- "How does the missing piece in #4 affect the 'so what'?"
Output Format
## Document Analysis: [Document Title]
**Document type**: [detected type]
**Source**: [[wikilink to original]]
### Non-Obvious Insights
1. **[Insight title]** — [Explanation with evidence from the document]
2. ...
### Tensions and Contradictions
1. **[Tension title]** — [What conflicts and why it matters]
2. ...
### The "So What"
[Single paragraph with the one actionable takeaway and why it matters most]
### What's Missing
1. **[Gap title]** — [What's unanswered and why it matters]
2. ...
### [Document-Type Specific Section Title]
[Findings from the type-specific modifier]
---
**Dig deeper:**
- [Follow-up question 1]
- [Follow-up question 2]
- [Follow-up question 3]
Important Notes
- Do not summarize. The goal is analysis, not compression. Avoid restating what the document already says.
- Be specific. Reference particular sections, quotes, or data points from the document to support each finding.
- Be opinionated. Commit to claims rather than hedging with "it could be argued that..." — the user wants a sharp analytical lens, not equivocation.
- Respect the vault. Display the analysis in the conversation. Do not create new files unless the user asks to save the output.
