菜单
Combines search results from multiple sources into coherent, deduplicated answers with source attribution. Handles confidence scoring based on freshness and authority, and summarizes large result sets effectively.
Claude as the trainer. Walks an SMB owner through connecting their first two tools, runs one recipe to prove immediate value, interviews them about their business (industry, size, top three headaches), stores that context persistently so every other skill benefits, and sets a weekly check-in cadence. Use when the owner is getting started or says any of: "set me up," "setup," "help me get set up," "get started," "help me get started," "get me started," "what can you do," "I'm new to this," or is in their first session.
Produces a one-page cross-functional business snapshot for SMB owners — cash position (QuickBooks), sales trend (PayPal/Square), pipeline movement (HubSpot), this week's commitments (Calendar), urgent watch-list items (Gmail/Slack), and the single most important thing needing attention today. Proactively tries every available connector and gracefully scopes to whatever is connected — one connector gives a partial pulse; the full stack gives the full picture. Trigger when the user asks how the business is doing, wants a snapshot, a weekly summary, a Monday brief, or says anything like "what am I missing" or "catch me up on the business."
Ranks the top-5 leads most worth calling today, supplies talking points from email history, blocks time on the calendar, and drafts follow-up messages. Accepts optional count and date arguments.
Takes an approved content brief and executes a campaign end-to-end: builds the posting calendar, generates Canva designs for social posts, drafts caption and email copy, and stages social sends in HubSpot. Canva is used for social posts only (Instagram, Facebook, X, LinkedIn) — email content is drafted as plain text and surfaced inline for the owner to send from their own tool. Every step requires explicit owner approval. Use when the user says "make the content," "generate the posts," "create the assets," "turn this into a campaign," or hands off an approved brief for execution.
Reads AR/AP, historical cash timing, and known fixed costs from QuickBooks, PayPal, Stripe, or Square — or a CSV upload — and produces a 30/60/90-day cash flow forecast with percentage-variance confidence bands and named risk flags. Delivers a chat summary and a downloadable XLSX. Use when the user asks "forecast my cash flow," "will I make payroll," mentions "runway," or says "cash crunch." Falls back to CSV upload when no connector is live.
Closes the month — reconciles QB vs payment processors, flags gaps, writes P&L narrative, exports close packet. Accepts optional month and save-to arguments.
| name | knowledge-synthesis |
| description | Combines search results from multiple sources into coherent, deduplicated answers with source attribution. Handles confidence scoring based on freshness and authority, and summarizes large result sets effectively. |
| user-invocable | false |
The last mile of enterprise search. Takes raw results from multiple sources and produces a coherent, trustworthy answer.
Transform this:
~~chat result: "Sarah said in #eng: 'let's go with REST, GraphQL is overkill for our use case'"
~~email result: "Subject: API Decision — Sarah's email confirming REST approach with rationale"
~~cloud storage result: "API Design Doc v3 — updated section 2 to reflect REST decision"
~~project tracker result: "Task: Finalize API approach — marked complete by Sarah"
Into this:
The team decided to go with REST over GraphQL for the API redesign. Sarah made the
call, noting that GraphQL was overkill for the current use case. This was discussed
in #engineering on Tuesday, confirmed via email Wednesday, and the design doc has
been updated to reflect the decision. The related ~~project tracker task is marked complete.
Sources:
- ~~chat: #engineering thread (Jan 14)
- ~~email: "API Decision" from Sarah (Jan 15)
- ~~cloud storage: "API Design Doc v3" (updated Jan 15)
- ~~project tracker: "Finalize API approach" (completed Jan 15)
The same information often appears in multiple places. Identify and merge duplicates:
Signals that results are about the same thing:
How to merge:
When the same information exists in multiple sources, prefer:
1. The most complete version (fullest context)
2. The most authoritative source (official doc > chat)
3. The most recent version (latest update wins for evolving info)
Keep as separate items when:
Every claim in the synthesized answer must be attributable to a source.
Inline for direct references:
Sarah confirmed the REST approach in her email on Wednesday.
The design doc was updated to reflect this (~~cloud storage: "API Design Doc v3").
Source list at the end for completeness:
Sources:
- ~~chat: #engineering discussion (Jan 14) — initial decision thread
- ~~email: "API Decision" from Sarah Chen (Jan 15) — formal confirmation
- ~~cloud storage: "API Design Doc v3" last modified Jan 15 — updated specification
Not all results are equally trustworthy. Assess confidence based on:
| Recency | Confidence impact |
|---|---|
| Today / yesterday | High confidence for current state |
| This week | Good confidence |
| This month | Moderate — things may have changed |
| Older than a month | Lower confidence — flag as potentially outdated |
For status queries, heavily weight freshness. For policy/factual queries, freshness matters less.
| Source type | Authority level |
|---|---|
| Official wiki / knowledge base | Highest — curated, maintained |
| Shared documents (final versions) | High — intentionally published |
| Email announcements | High — formal communication |
| Meeting notes | Moderate-high — may be incomplete |
| Chat messages (thread conclusions) | Moderate — informal but real-time |
| Chat messages (mid-thread) | Lower — may not reflect final position |
| Draft documents | Low — not finalized |
| Task comments | Contextual — depends on commenter |
When confidence is high (multiple fresh, authoritative sources agree):
The team decided to use REST for the API redesign. [direct statement]
When confidence is moderate (single source or somewhat dated):
Based on the discussion in #engineering last month, the team was leaning
toward REST for the API redesign. This may have evolved since then.
When confidence is low (old data, informal source, or conflicting signals):
I found a reference to an API migration discussion from three months ago
in ~~chat, but I couldn't find a formal decision document. The information
may be outdated. You might want to check with the team for current status.
When sources disagree:
I found conflicting information about the API approach:
- The ~~chat discussion on Jan 10 suggested GraphQL
- But Sarah's email on Jan 15 confirmed REST
- The design doc (updated Jan 15) reflects REST
The most recent sources indicate REST was the final decision,
but the earlier ~~chat discussion explored GraphQL first.
Always surface conflicts rather than silently picking one version.
Present each result with context. No summarization needed — give the user everything:
[Direct answer synthesized from results]
[Detail from source 1]
[Detail from source 2]
Sources: [full attribution]
Group by theme and summarize each group:
[Overall answer]
Theme 1: [summary of related results]
Theme 2: [summary of related results]
Key sources: [top 3-5 most relevant sources]
Full results: [count] items found across [sources]
Provide a high-level synthesis with the option to drill down:
[Overall answer based on most relevant results]
Summary:
- [Key finding 1] (supported by N sources)
- [Key finding 2] (supported by N sources)
- [Key finding 3] (supported by N sources)
Top sources:
- [Most authoritative/relevant source]
- [Second most relevant]
- [Third most relevant]
Found [total count] results across [source list].
Want me to dig deeper into any specific aspect?
[Raw results from all sources]
↓
[1. Deduplicate — merge same info from different sources]
↓
[2. Cluster — group related results by theme/topic]
↓
[3. Rank — order clusters and items by relevance to query]
↓
[4. Assess confidence — freshness × authority × agreement]
↓
[5. Synthesize — produce narrative answer with attribution]
↓
[6. Format — choose appropriate detail level for result count]
↓
[Coherent answer with sources]
Do not:
Do: