knowledge-synthesis

name	knowledge-synthesis
version	1.0.0
description	[Research] Use when you need to synthesize research findings into structured report using template.

Quick Summary

Goal: Produce a fully-cited, template-compliant research report by synthesizing the evidence base using the enforced template — whose confidence scores and gaps are honest enough to trust for decisions.

Summary:

• Synthesizes a report FROM an existing evidence base (.claude/tmp/_evidence-{slug}.md + _sources-{slug}.md from deep-research) — this skill does not gather sources, it consolidates them into docs/knowledge/research/{slug}.md.
• The enforced template (.claude/templates/research-report-template.md) is non-negotiable: every section MUST appear, and the Knowledge Gaps section can never be omitted — a missing gaps section manufactures false confidence.
• Citation discipline is the core gate: every factual claim carries an inline [N], every Sources-table entry is referenced at least once, and there are zero orphan citations or orphan sources.
• Close with an honest confidence rollup (weighted average of finding scores) that prominently flags any <60% finding, then clean up .claude/tmp/ working files.

Workflow:

1. Load evidence — Read evidence base from deep-research
2. Load template — Read enforced template from .claude/templates/
3. Synthesize — Write report following template structure
4. Citation check — Verify every claim has citation
5. Confidence summary — Aggregate scores, flag gaps

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION use enforced template structure — all sections required
• Every factual claim inline-cited: [N] referencing source table
• Knowledge gaps section mandatory

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

Knowledge Synthesis

Knowledge Work Rules

Web Research Protocol — Every factual claim needs 2+ independent sources. Source tiers: Tier 1 (authoritative .gov/.edu/official docs), Tier 2 (industry reports), Tier 3 (credible blogs — cross-validate), Tier 4 (unverified — NEVER cite as fact). Declare confidence (95/80/60/<60%) for all findings. Use the enforced template structure — all sections required. Working files → .claude/tmp/, final output → docs/knowledge/. Canonical protocol lives in the web-research skill.

Step 1: Load Evidence

Read .claude/tmp/_evidence-{slug}.md and .claude/tmp/_sources-{slug}.md.

Inventory:

• Total findings with confidence scores
• Unresolved discrepancies
• Remaining gaps

Step 2: Load Template

Read enforced template: .claude/templates/research-report-template.md

Every template section MUST ATTENTION appear in final report.

Step 3: Synthesize Report

Write to docs/knowledge/research/{slug}.md. For each template section:

1. Map relevant findings from evidence base
2. Write content with inline citations [N]
3. Declare confidence per finding
4. Note cross-cutting patterns and contradictions in Analysis section

Step 4: Citation Audit

Verify:

• Every factual claim has 1+ [N] citation
• Every source in Sources table referenced 1+ time
• No orphan citations (referencing non-existent source)

Step 5: Confidence Summary

Calculate overall report confidence:

• Average of all finding confidence scores
• Weight by finding importance
• Flag any <60% findings prominently

Output

Final report: docs/knowledge/research/{descriptive-slug}.md

Clean up working files from .claude/tmp/ after successful synthesis.

---

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Produce a fully-cited, template-compliant research report by synthesizing the existing evidence base through the enforced template — whose confidence scores and Knowledge Gaps are honest enough to trust for decisions.

Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries): MUST ATTENTION honor every block below — each is a signpost to its canonical body above.

• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
• Critical Thinking: traced proof per claim, confidence >80% to act, never guess as fact.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use enforced template structure (.claude/templates/research-report-template.md) — every section required, NEVER omit Knowledge Gaps — why: a missing gaps section manufactures false confidence in incomplete research IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION inline-cite every factual claim with [N]; verify zero orphan citations (claim cites missing source) AND zero orphan sources (Sources-table row referenced 0 times) — why: uncited claims are assertions, not findings IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION synthesize FROM the evidence base only (.claude/tmp/_evidence-{slug}.md + _sources-{slug}.md) — NEVER fabricate, add, or upgrade findings beyond gathered evidence; this skill consolidates, it does not research — why: invented findings poison the report's trust IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION respect source tiers — Tier 4 (unverified) NEVER cited as fact; every factual claim backed by 2+ independent sources — why: single-source or unverified claims read as confident but unproven IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION close with an honest confidence rollup (importance-weighted average of finding scores) that prominently flags every <60% finding — why: an unflagged weak finding inflates apparent report confidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting; mark one in_progress at a time and complete it on evidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence (or [N] source) for every claim — confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT assert; NEVER present a guess as fact IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION grep/read 3+ similar existing reports under docs/knowledge/research/ before writing — match the template's section shape, do NOT invent a new layout — why: divergent report structure breaks the knowledge-review gate IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION output final report to docs/knowledge/research/{slug}.md, then clean up .claude/tmp/ working files after successful synthesis — why: stale working files leak across runs IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality (template complete · citations balanced · gaps present · rollup flagged)

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Evidence is thin, fill the gap with my own"	NEVER fabricate. Record it in Knowledge Gaps with confidence <60% instead.
"This claim is obvious, skip the citation"	No [N] = not a finding. Cite the source or move it to assumptions.
"Gaps section is empty, drop it"	Empty ≠ omit. State "no unresolved gaps" explicitly — omission fakes completeness.
"All findings strong, skip the rollup flag"	Compute the weighted average; flag any <60%. One weak finding hides in the mean.
"Template section is N/A, delete it"	Keep it, write "Not applicable — why". Missing sections fail the knowledge-review.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal echo: fully-cited, template-compliant report; NEVER omit Knowledge Gaps; zero orphan citations/sources — synthesize FROM evidence, never fabricate.