Research Synthesis

---
name: research-synthesis
description: Turns many sources into a decision-ready synthesis - atomic claims clustered into named themes, surfaced tensions between sources, gaps no source answers, and explicit so-what/now-what implications with confidence ratings. Use when someone says "synthesize this research", "what do all these reports agree on", "pull the themes out of these articles", or has a pile of sources and needs conclusions rather than source-by-source summaries. Do NOT use for synthesizing user interview transcripts - use interview-synthesis instead; for a formal academic literature review, use literature-review.
metadata:
  title: "Research Synthesis"
---

# Research Synthesis

Synthesis is not summary. A summary repeats what each source said; a synthesis finds
the patterns *across* sources and says what it means. This skill turns 20+ sources into
a decision-ready document.

## Step 1: Capture, don't just read

As you go through each source, extract atomic notes (one idea per note):

```
Source: <author, title, date>
Claim: <a single finding or argument, in your own words>
Evidence: <what backs it - data, study, anecdote>
Confidence: <strong / moderate / weak>
```

Keep claims atomic so you can later regroup them across sources. Tag each with a topic.

## Step 2: Cluster into themes

Lay all the claims out and group them by what they're *about*, regardless of source.
Patterns emerge when ideas from different authors sit together. Name each cluster with
a **theme** - a sentence that captures the shared insight, not just a topic word.

```
Theme: "Remote teams ship faster but report weaker belonging."
  - [Source A] productivity up 12% remote
  - [Source C] async cuts cycle time
  - [Source B] belonging scores down in fully-remote orgs
```

## Step 3: Find tensions and disagreements

The most valuable output is where sources **conflict**. For each tension:
- State both positions and who holds them.
- Hypothesize *why* they differ (different populations? definitions? time periods? incentives?).
- Note what evidence would resolve it.

Don't paper over disagreement - surfacing it is the point.

## Step 4: Identify gaps

What's **missing**? Note:
- Questions no source answers.
- Weakly-supported claims everyone repeats (an echo, not evidence).
- Populations / contexts not studied.

Gaps tell the reader where to be cautious and where new research/work is needed.

## Step 5: Write the "so what"

End every theme and the document overall with implications:

- **So what?** - why does this matter for the decision at hand?
- **Now what?** - what should we do given this? Concrete recommendations.

A synthesis that doesn't reach "so what" is just organized note-taking.

## Output structure

```
# Synthesis: <question>

## Executive summary (the so-what, up front)
## Themes
  ### Theme 1 - <insight sentence>
    Evidence: [sources]. So what: <...>
## Tensions & disagreements
## Gaps & open questions
## Implications & recommendations
## Source list with confidence ratings
```

## Tips

- **Synthesize across, not down** - organize by theme, never source-by-source.
- **Weight by quality** - three weak blog posts don't outweigh one rigorous study.
- **Quote sparingly**; paraphrase into your shared framework.
- **Show your confidence** so readers can calibrate.

## Anti-patterns

- A list of source summaries with a conclusion bolted on - that's not synthesis.
- Ignoring disagreement to present a tidy narrative.
- Treating volume of mentions as truth - popularity isn't evidence.
- Stopping at "what" without "so what / now what".