mind-mapping-and-synthesis

name	mind-mapping-and-synthesis
description	Use when a verified corpus or brief must be compressed into a navigable mind map for synthesis, taxonomy, wave planning, or decomposition; use cross-cohort-synthesis for final comparative findings and knowledge-mining for reusable claim assets.
metadata	{"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

Mind mapping and synthesis

Mind mapping is a radial organisation technique developed by Tony Buzan: a central image or topic, with branches radiating outward, each branch carrying a single keyword or image, with sub-branches deepening the structure. The engine uses mind maps as a synthesis tool — for compressing a large corpus into a navigable structure and for finding relationships that linear notes hide.

This is not an aesthetic choice. Mind maps and linear notes do different cognitive work; choosing the right one matters for output quality.

When to invoke this skill

• A literature pass has produced a large body of notes that needs structure
• Pain points across multiple cohorts need a taxonomy
• A regulatory landscape needs a navigable overview
• A research brief has multiple dimensions that won't fit a linear outline
• Synthesis across cohorts (research-orchestration) is producing too much narrative and not enough structure
• The analyst is stuck in linear thinking and the problem has hierarchical or radial structure

When not to use mind mapping:

• The output is purely sequential (a procedural runbook, a chronology)
• The structure is dynamics, not hierarchy (use systems-thinking-and-mental-models)
• The output is a legal analysis (use online-legal-research IRAC)
• The audience expects prose (mind maps are a thinking tool; the output may need to be re-rendered as prose)

Buzan's seven steps (Mind Map Mastery, Chapter 1)

Verbatim from Buzan, lightly condensed:

1. Place the sheet of paper in landscape format. Use at least three different colours to draw an image in the very centre of the paper that represents the subject. The central image activates imagination and triggers associations.
2. Pick a colour and draw a thick branch coming away from the central image, like the bough of a tree. Let the branch curve organically. Its thickness symbolises the weight of the association in the hierarchy.
3. Label the branch with a single word in capital letters — or a symbol. Each branch carries one keyword.
4. Send out secondary-level shoots from the main branch. Then third-level branches that spread out from the secondary shoots. Write keywords or draw symbols on all branches.
5. Pick another colour and create the next main branch, working around the central image. Continue until you have about five or six main branches.
6. Move freely around the Mind Map, leaping between branches, filling gaps and adding new sub-branches as ideas occur.
7. Add arrows, curving lines and links between main branches to reinforce connections.

The Laws of Mind Mapping (Mind Map Mastery, Chapter 2 — verbatim from Buzan)

1. Always use a blank sheet of paper, placed in landscape position.
2. Draw a picture in the centre of the paper, representing your subject, using at least three colours.
3. Use images, symbols, codes and dimension throughout your Mind Map.
4. Select keywords and write these using capital letters.
5. Place each word or image on its own branch, so that it stands by itself.
6. Radiate flowing branches out from the central image. Make the branches thicker toward the centre of the Mind Map, and thinner as they radiate outward.
7. Keep branches the same length as the words or images on them.
8. Use colours throughout, developing your own colour code in the branches.
9. Use emphasis, arrows and connecting lines to depict associations between different related topics.
10. Aim for clarity by positioning your branches in carefully thought-through space. The space between things is often as important as the things themselves.

These laws are not arbitrary aesthetic preferences. Buzan's argument: each law strengthens the cognitive grip the map has on the brain — colour, single keywords, radial structure, and curved branches all contribute to recall and association.

How the engine adapts Buzan for analyst work

The engine outputs markdown corpora and Word documents. Hand-drawn radial mind maps don't translate directly. The translation rules:

Buzan's law	Engine adaptation
Landscape paper, central image	Mermaid mindmap block with the central topic as root
At least three colours	Mermaid theme styling on classes; or annotation markers (★, ●, ▲) when colour is unavailable
Single keyword per branch	One noun/noun-phrase per branch; never sentences
Radial branches	mindmap natively does this
Colour code	Class names in Mermaid; conventional categories: blue=evidence, green=opportunity, red=risk, gold=insight
Cross-links between branches	Annotated as separate relationships: block beneath the mindmap, since Mermaid mindmap does not natively support cross-links
Images / symbols	Unicode glyphs (📌 ⚖ 🔍 ⚠ 💡 🌍) where the audience expects them; otherwise omit

Reference router

Need	Load
How to construct a mind map for analyst purposes (synthesis pass, taxonomy, brief decomposition)	references/mind-map-construction.md
How to use mind maps for learning, recall, and study (analyst preparing for an unfamiliar domain)	references/study-and-recall-techniques.md
Concrete Mermaid mindmap templates for engine output (cohort synthesis, pain-point taxonomy, regulatory landscape, research-plan map)	references/mermaid-mindmap-patterns.md

Use cases in the engine

Cohort synthesis

After research-wave outputs are merged into <cohort>/research/, a mind map captures the cohort's structure: central node = the cohort question; main branches = themes; sub-branches = specific findings; cross-links = recurring patterns. The mind map becomes part of <cohort>/analysis/ and feeds cross-cohort-synthesis.

Pain-point taxonomy

When pain-point-taxonomy is the active skill, the radial structure helps: pain category as a main branch, specific instances as sub-branches, cross-links between cohorts that share the same pain.

Regulatory landscape

A regulatory landscape mind map — central node = the regulated activity; main branches = regulators / statutes / cases / guidance; sub-branches = specifics. Pairs well with a systemigram from systems-thinking-and-mental-models (the systemigram shows flows; the mind map shows hierarchy).

Research-plan decomposition

A brief with multiple cohorts decomposes naturally into a mind map: central node = the project; main branches = cohorts; sub-branches = themes within each cohort; further branches = sources to mine. Helps spot scope-creep and gaps before sub-agents are dispatched.

Brief decomposition for sub-agents

Each sub-agent's portion of the project corresponds to one main branch. Reading off the branch produces the sub-agent brief.

Universal anti-patterns

• Writing sentences on branches (one keyword per branch is non-negotiable)
• Branches all the same colour / class — defeats the cognitive purpose
• Mind map with no cross-links when the corpus has obvious connections (relationships are part of the value)
• Treating the mind map as the deliverable when the audience needs prose (it's a thinking artifact; re-render for the audience)
• Building a mind map when the underlying structure is sequential, dynamic, or temporal (use the right tool)
• Skipping the central image / topic — the centre is the anchor; without it the radial structure becomes arbitrary
• Adding branches to fill space rather than because the structure demands them (every branch should earn its place)
• Using a mind map to avoid doing the linear-prose work — the mind map is upstream of prose, not a substitute

Companion skills

• research-orchestration — for sequencing mind-map syntheses across waves
• systems-thinking-and-mental-models — for dynamics work that mind maps cannot capture
• analytic-tradecraft — when the synthesis becomes a formal estimative judgement
• documentation-generation:mermaid-expert — for richer Mermaid notation when the mindmap shape isn't enough
• professional-word-output, python-document-generation — for rendering the mind map into a Word artifact

Sub-agent briefing — when to ask for a mind map

Some sub-agent tasks should return a mind map rather than (or in addition to) a narrative report. Trigger words:

• "taxonomy of …"
• "structure of …"
• "categories of …"
• "landscape of …"
• "map the relationships between …"

When dispatching such a task, request the deliverable as a Mermaid mindmap block plus a short prose key. The brief still includes the evidence-discipline clause from source-evaluation.

Use When

• Use to organise a verified corpus, decompose a brief, or expose relationships before synthesis.

Do Not Use When

• Do not use a mind map as evidence or as a substitute for a tested cross-cohort conclusion.

Inputs

Artefact	Source or provider	Required?	If absent
Verified corpus or brief, source identifiers, and mapping question	Research workflow	required	Return a proposed branch scheme only

Workflow

1. State the central question and mapping purpose.
2. Extract branch candidates from the supplied material and retain source identifiers.
3. Choose radial map depth; stop when a branch would assert an unsupported relationship.
4. Render the Mermaid map, check syntax and coverage, and recover by supplying a plain hierarchy if rendering is unavailable.

Capability contract

Default to read-only synthesis. Editing the source corpus, publishing, or executing a renderer requires explicit authority.

Degraded mode

Without rendering, return valid Mermaid source plus a plain-text tree and mark visual inspection not assessed.

Decision rules

Choice	Action	Failure avoided
Material has one organising question and associative branches	Use a mind map	Forced linear hierarchy
Final answer requires comparative claims	Route to cross-cohort synthesis	Diagram mistaken for conclusion

Outputs

Artefact	Consumer	Observable acceptance condition
Mermaid mind map and prose key	Analyst or research orchestrator	Branches trace to inputs; syntax is checked or marked not assessed

Mind Mapping And Synthesis Evidence Notes

• Record corpus scope, branch-to-source mapping, omitted material, and rendering result.

Quality Standards

Keep branch labels concise, preserve dissent and gaps, and distinguish source material from analyst inference.

Anti-Patterns

• Treating branch proximity as proof. Fix: state relationships in the key with evidence.
• Mixing unrelated central questions. Fix: create separate maps.
• Copying paragraphs into branches. Fix: use concise organising labels.
• Omitting contradictory material. Fix: add a contradiction or gap branch.
• Claiming render success without viewing it. Fix: mark visual inspection not assessed.

Worked example

Map a verified policy corpus around one decision, branch by stakeholder and issue, attach source identifiers in the key, and preserve contradictions as their own branch.

References

• Mind-map construction
• Mermaid patterns

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Consumer	Acceptance
Branch-to-source map and render result	Research orchestrator	Omissions, gaps, and unassessed rendering are explicit

Reference Index

• Study and recall techniques