| name | research-synthesis |
| description | Synthesise findings across multiple documents or web sources into a structured research report with inline citations, contradiction detection, and evidence grading. Use when asked to "research a topic across documents", "synthesise findings", "literature review", "compare sources", "cross-reference documents", "compile research report", "what do these documents say about X", or any multi-source analysis task.
|
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0.0","tags":["research"]} |
Multi-Document Research Synthesis
When to Use This Skill
Use this Skill when the user asks to:
- Research a topic across multiple documents or sources
- Synthesise or reconcile findings from different sources
- Produce a literature review or research summary
- Detect contradictions between sources
- Grade evidence quality across a corpus
- Answer a question using multiple documents as evidence
- Compile a cross-referenced research report
Workflow
Research Synthesis Progress:
Step 1: Define research question and gather sources
Clarify:
- Research question — What specifically are we investigating?
- Source corpus — Documents in storage (local files), uploaded files, web URLs, or search index?
- Scope constraints — Date range, source types, specific authors/publications?
Gather sources:
Stored documents → Tool: local_files({ path })
Web sources → Tool: browse_web({ url })
Search index → Tool: query_search_index({ query, top_k: 50 })
Step 2: Extract and chunk all sources
For each source:
- PDF → Tool: extract_pdf({ source }) or call_doc_intelligence({ source })
- DOCX → Tool: extract_docx({ source })
- XLSX → Tool: extract_xlsx({ source })
- Web → Already extracted via browse_web
Chunk each source into passages (~300-500 tokens) preserving:
- Source attribution (file name, URL, page number)
- Section context (heading hierarchy)
- Passage index within source
Step 3: Retrieve relevant passages
For each aspect of the research question:
Build a relevance matrix: which passages from which sources address which aspects of the question.
Step 4: Analyse and cross-reference
For each relevant passage:
- Extract the claim (what the source asserts)
- Identify supporting evidence (data, citations, reasoning)
- Note the context (methodology, assumptions, caveats)
- Tag the stance (supports, contradicts, neutral, or qualifies the research question)
Cross-reference claims across sources:
- Corroboration — Multiple sources support the same claim
- Contradiction — Sources make incompatible claims
- Complementarity — Sources address different aspects without conflict
- Qualification — One source adds conditions or nuance to another's claim
Step 5: Detect contradictions
For each identified contradiction:
| Source A | Claim A | Source B | Claim B | Nature | Resolution |
|---|
| | | | Direct / Partial / Contextual | Which is more credible and why |
Contradiction types:
- Direct — Factual claims that cannot both be true
- Partial — Claims that overlap but differ in scope or magnitude
- Contextual — Claims that appear contradictory but apply to different contexts
Step 6: Grade evidence
Score each source and claim using the evidence grading rubric:
| Grade | Label | Criteria |
|---|
| A | Strong | Primary data, peer-reviewed, large sample, reproducible methodology |
| B | Moderate | Reputable secondary source, expert analysis, consistent with other evidence |
| C | Weak | Single source, opinion-based, small sample, potential bias, outdated |
| D | Very Weak | Anecdotal, unverified, known bias, contradicted by stronger evidence |
| U | Unknown | Insufficient information to assess credibility |
Factors:
- Source authority (expertise, publication venue, institutional backing)
- Methodology (if applicable — sample size, controls, replicability)
- Recency (newer data on fast-moving topics scores higher)
- Corroboration (claims supported by multiple independent sources score higher)
- Potential bias (funding source, advocacy position, commercial interest)
Step 7: Synthesise findings
Construct a narrative synthesis that:
- Opens with the consensus view — what most/strongest sources agree on
- Addresses key debates — where sources disagree, with evidence for each side
- Identifies gaps — aspects of the question no source adequately addresses
- Draws conclusions — qualified by evidence strength
- Uses inline citations —
[Source Name, p.X] or [URL, §Section] for every claim
Step 8: Produce report
Research Summary
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Research question | |
| Sources analysed | |
| Date range | |
| Evidence quality | (A/B/C distribution) |
Key Findings
- [Finding] — [Evidence summary with citations] — Evidence grade: [A/B/C]
Contradictions & Debates
| Topic | Position A | Position B | Stronger Evidence | Resolution |
|---|
Evidence Gap Analysis
| Aspect | Coverage | Recommendation |
|---|
Source Assessment
| Source | Type | Recency | Authority | Relevance | Evidence Grade |
|---|
Narrative Synthesis
[Multi-paragraph synthesis with inline citations]
Bibliography
| # | Source | Type | Date | URL/Location |
|---|
Step 9: Persist output
Tool: local_files({ path: "~/contelligence-output/research//.md", content: })
Edge Cases
- Sources in different languages: Note the language of each source; synthesise in the user's requested language.
- Highly technical sources: Flag domain-specific jargon and provide brief definitions.
- Sources with different publication dates: Weight recent sources higher for fast-evolving topics; note temporal context for each claim.
- Very large corpus (>20 sources): Prioritise by relevance score; provide a tiered report (top findings from all sources, detailed analysis of top 10).
Constraints
- Every claim in the synthesis must have at least one citation — never present unsourced assertions.
- Clearly distinguish between what sources say and your own analytical conclusions.
- When evidence is weak or conflicting, state the uncertainty explicitly.
- Do not cherry-pick — present the full range of perspectives found in the sources.
