---

name: research-synthesis description: Synthesizes research findings into coherent narratives with uncertainty quantification. Use when integrating findings from multiple sources, creating research summaries, drawing conclusions from evidence, or communicating research results. Triggers on phrases like "synthesize", "integrate findings", "what's the conclusion", "summarize research", "overall picture", "bring together". tools:

• WebSearch
• WebFetch
• Read
• Grep
• Glob

---

Research Synthesis

This skill guides the integration of diverse research findings into coherent, actionable conclusions.

Phase 1: Synthesis Preparation

Input Assessment

• What sources/findings need synthesis?
• What is the overarching research question?
• Who is the audience for this synthesis?
• What decisions will this inform?

Source Inventory

Source	Type	Quality	Key Contribution
[Source]	[Type]	[Rating]	[Main finding]

Compatibility Check

• Do sources address the same question?
• Are methodologies compatible?
• Can findings be meaningfully compared?
• Are there definitional inconsistencies?

CHECKPOINT: Confirm synthesis scope and purpose with user.

Phase 2: Pattern Recognition

Finding Categorization

Group findings by:

By Conclusion:

• Consistent findings (agree)
• Inconsistent findings (disagree)
• Complementary findings (different aspects)
• Unique findings (only one source)

By Evidence Strength:

• Strong evidence (multiple high-quality sources)
• Moderate evidence (some quality sources)
• Weak evidence (limited or low-quality sources)
• Contested (conflicting strong sources)

Convergence Analysis

For each major finding:

1. How many sources support it?
2. What is their combined quality?
3. Are there methodological differences?
4. Do any sources contradict?

Phase 3: Weight Assignment

Evidence Weighting Factors

Factor	Weight Modifier
Sample size	Larger = higher weight
Study design	RCT > observational
Peer review	Reviewed > not reviewed
Replication	Replicated > single study
Recency	More recent = higher (usually)
Relevance	Direct > indirect evidence

Confidence Levels

• High confidence: Multiple high-quality sources agree, no major contradictions
• Moderate confidence: Good evidence but some limitations or gaps
• Low confidence: Limited evidence, quality concerns, or contradictions
• Very low confidence: Minimal evidence, major limitations
• Insufficient: Cannot draw conclusions

Phase 4: Contradiction Resolution

When Sources Disagree

Step 1: Verify actual disagreement

• Are they measuring the same thing?
• Are conditions comparable?
• Could both be true in different contexts?

Step 2: Assess relative quality

• Which has stronger methodology?
• Which has larger sample?
• Which is more recent?

Step 3: Identify explanatory factors

• Population differences
• Methodological differences
• Context differences
• Time period differences

Step 4: Synthesis approach

Situation	Approach
Quality difference	Favor higher quality
Context difference	Specify conditions
Genuine debate	Present both positions
Unexplained	Acknowledge uncertainty

CHECKPOINT: Present contradictions and proposed resolution for user input.

Phase 5: Narrative Construction

Synthesis Structure Options

Conceptual Framework: Organize around theoretical concepts

Concept 1 → Concept 2 → Concept 3
    ↓           ↓           ↓
[Findings]  [Findings]  [Findings]

Chronological: Trace evolution of understanding

Early understanding → Key developments → Current state

Problem-Solution: Frame around practical questions

Problem → Evidence → Solutions → Remaining gaps

Argument-Based: Build toward conclusions

Claim → Evidence → Counterclaim → Resolution → Conclusion

Narrative Elements

1. Opening: Context and importance
2. Body: Organized evidence presentation
3. Integration: How pieces connect
4. Limitations: What we don't know
5. Conclusion: Key takeaways

Phase 6: Uncertainty Quantification

Uncertainty Sources

Source	Description	Handling
Measurement	Data collection errors	Acknowledge precision limits
Sampling	Non-representative samples	Note generalizability limits
Model	Theoretical assumptions	Test sensitivity
Conflict	Disagreeing sources	Present range of views
Gap	Missing information	Explicitly note unknowns

Uncertainty Communication

Use calibrated language:

Confidence	Language
Very high (>95%)	"The evidence clearly shows..."
High (80-95%)	"The evidence strongly suggests..."
Moderate (60-80%)	"The evidence suggests..."
Low (40-60%)	"Some evidence indicates..."
Very low (<40%)	"Limited evidence hints at..."

Phase 7: Actionable Conclusions

Conclusion Formulation

For each key conclusion:

• State the finding clearly
• Specify confidence level
• Note key supporting evidence
• Acknowledge limitations
• Identify implications

Recommendation Framework

Evidence Strength	Recommendation Type
Strong	Direct recommendation
Moderate	Conditional recommendation
Weak	Suggestion for consideration
Insufficient	No recommendation (need more research)

Phase 8: Documentation

Output Structure

# Research Synthesis: [Topic]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph overview of key findings]

## Purpose
[Research question and synthesis goals]

## Sources Synthesized
[Brief description of evidence base]

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Statement]
**Confidence**: [Level]
**Evidence**: [Summary of supporting sources]
**Caveats**: [Limitations or conditions]

### Finding 2: [Statement]
[Same structure]

## Areas of Uncertainty
- [Uncertainty 1]: [Description and implications]
- [Uncertainty 2]: [Description and implications]

## Contradictions and Debates
- [Topic]: [Summary of disagreement and interpretation]

## Conclusions
[Integrated conclusions with confidence levels]

## Implications
- For [audience 1]: [Implications]
- For [audience 2]: [Implications]

## Research Gaps
[What remains unknown and needs investigation]

## References
[Formatted citations]

CHECKPOINT: Review synthesis for accuracy and completeness with user.