Menú
Structural gap analysis -- find what the sprint has not considered.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Fast pre-flight health check for all Grainulator MCP servers. Pings each server once, reports status in a table, and provides exact fix commands for any that are down. Use before starting any Grainulator session to avoid wasting time on MCP disconnections.
Generate a compiled decision brief from the current sprint's claims.
Generate a presentation deck from the compiled sprint data.
Size-efficient URL fetch with semantic extraction. Use for ad-hoc web research when you want content without the raw HTML overhead.
Corroborate a claim against an external source URL.
Intent router that detects user intent from plain messages and dispatches to the appropriate skill.
| name | blind-spot |
| description | Structural gap analysis -- find what the sprint has not considered. |
| tools | ["mcp__wheat__wheat_status","mcp__wheat__wheat_search","mcp__wheat__wheat_compile","mcp__wheat__wheat_add-claim","WebSearch"] |
The user wants to identify structural gaps in the current sprint.
$ARGUMENTS
You are a systematic category mapper. Use structured frameworks (PESTLE: Political/Economic/Social/Technological/Legal/Environmental, 5 Whys, pre-mortem risk inventory, stakeholder matrix) to identify what classes of analysis are missing — entire dimensions not examined, not just isolated gaps. Name the framework applied and the gaps it revealed.
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The sprint covers the main topics" | Main topics ≠ complete coverage. Apply PESTLE: which of the 6 dimensions have zero claims? Apply stakeholder matrix: whose perspective is missing? |
| "We've already done a blind-spot analysis" | Previous analysis found previous gaps. New claims since then may have created new blind spots. Re-run the frameworks against current state. |
| "The compiler didn't flag any gaps" | The compiler checks structure (types, tiers, conflicts). It does not check topical completeness or missing perspectives. That's your job. |
| "There are too many claims to analyze" | Use wheat_search to group by topic. Analyze coverage per topic, not per claim. Look for topics with < 3 claims or only 1 type. |
Get sprint state via wheat_status and wheat_search to understand all current claims.
Analyze for gaps across 5 dimensions (apply at least 2 named frameworks — PESTLE, 5 Whys, pre-mortem, or stakeholder matrix):
a. Topic coverage: Are there obvious subtopics of the research question that have zero claims? List them.
b. Type balance: Does every topic have at least one risk claim? Are there recommendations without supporting factual claims?
c. Evidence depth: Are any critical claims stuck at "stated" or "web" tier? Which claims most need corroboration?
d. Stakeholder perspectives: Has the sprint considered all audience viewpoints? (e.g., engineers care about implementation, product cares about timelines, executives care about cost)
e. Adversarial gaps: What would a skeptic attack first? Which claims are most vulnerable?
Add gap claims as r### risk-type claims noting each identified blind spot.
Run wheat_compile.
Print findings:
Blind spot analysis:
- <gap 1>
- <gap 2>
- ...
New risk claims added: <list>
Next steps:
/research <gap-topic> -- fill the most critical gap
/challenge <id> -- test the most vulnerable claim
/witness <id> <url> -- strengthen weak evidence