Tracking Research Gaps

Extracts, organizes, and tracks research needs throughout the book writing process.

When to use this skill

Manual triggers:

• User says "show research gaps"
• User says "what research do I need?"
• User says "track research" or "update research gaps"

Automatic trigger:

• After drafting a chapter that contains [RESEARCH: ...] markers

What this skill does

1. Scans chapter files for [RESEARCH: ...] markers
2. Extracts gap descriptions and severity
3. Updates or creates research-gaps.md
4. Organizes by priority (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
5. Tracks which chapters need each piece of research

Prerequisites

Needs:

• At least one chapter file in /chapters/

If no chapters:

No chapters have been drafted yet. 
Research gaps are tracked as you write - they'll appear when chapters 
contain [RESEARCH: ...] markers.

Research marker format

Chapters should contain inline markers like:

[RESEARCH: description | severity: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

Examples:

[RESEARCH: Need 2022-2024 statistics on remote work adoption | severity: HIGH]
[RESEARCH: Find case study of B2B company using this framework | severity: MEDIUM]
[RESEARCH: Verify this framework name and attribution | severity: LOW]

Severity levels

HIGH - Affects credibility:

• Statistics or data claims without sources
• Factual statements that need verification
• Critical examples that don't exist yet
• Information that readers will question if missing

MEDIUM - Strengthens but not critical:

• Additional examples to support points
• Case studies to illustrate concepts
• Supporting data that reinforces arguments
• Contextual information that adds depth

LOW - Nice-to-have polish:

• Verification of names/attributions
• Optional additional sources
• Extra examples for variety
• Background details

Process

Step 1: Scan for markers

Read all chapter files in /chapters/ directory:

grep -r "\[RESEARCH:" chapters/

Extract:

• Full description
• Severity level
• Which chapter contains it

Step 2: Organize gaps

Group by severity, then by chapter.

Step 3: Create or update research-gaps.md

# Research Gaps

Last updated: [date]
Total gaps: [count] (High: [X], Medium: [Y], Low: [Z])

## High Priority
Critical gaps that significantly impact credibility or completeness.

### [Short descriptive title]
- **Details**: [Full description from marker]
- **Needed for**: Chapter [X]
- **Severity**: HIGH
- **Suggested direction**: [Where to look, what questions to answer]
- **Status**: open

[Repeat for all high priority gaps]

## Medium Priority
Gaps that would strengthen content but aren't critical.

### [Title]
- **Details**: [description]
- **Needed for**: Chapter [X], Chapter [Y]
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
- **Suggested direction**: [research direction]
- **Status**: open

[Repeat for all medium priority gaps]

## Low Priority
Nice-to-have additions or verifications.

### [Title]
- **Details**: [description]
- **Needed for**: Chapter [X]
- **Severity**: LOW
- **Suggested direction**: [direction]
- **Status**: open

[Repeat for all low priority gaps]

## Resolved
Completed research moved here for reference.

### [Title] - Resolved [date]
- **Details**: [original description]
- **Resolution**: [What was found/decided]
- **Applied to**: Chapter [X]

Step 4: Add suggested directions

For each gap, suggest where to look:

Statistics/data:

Suggested direction: Check industry reports from Gartner, McKinsey, 
or academic studies on remote work trends. Look for 2022-2024 timeframe.

Case studies:

Suggested direction: Search business publications (HBR, Inc., Fast Company) 
or company blogs for implementation stories. Focus on B2B SaaS companies.

Verification:

Suggested direction: Check original source - likely from [author's name] 
work on [topic]. Verify spelling and publication.

Examples:

Suggested direction: Draw from user's experience, or interview colleagues 
who've faced this situation. Real examples beat hypotheticals.

Step 5: Identify multi-chapter gaps

If same research appears in multiple chapters:

- **Needed for**: Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Chapter 7

This indicates important cross-cutting information.

Step 6: Git commit

git add research-gaps.md
git commit -m "Update research gaps - [X] new gaps from Chapter [Y]"

Examples

Example 1: After drafting chapter with gaps

Chapter 3 contains:

Recent studies show [RESEARCH: Need data on manager time spent in meetings 
2022-2024 | severity: HIGH] that managers spend excessive time in meetings.

One company [RESEARCH: Find case study of company that reduced meeting 
time by 50% | severity: MEDIUM] successfully cut meeting time in half.

Generated research-gaps.md:

# Research Gaps

Last updated: 2025-10-18
Total gaps: 2 (High: 1, Medium: 1, Low: 0)

## High Priority

### Manager meeting time statistics
- **Details**: Need data on manager time spent in meetings 2022-2024
- **Needed for**: Chapter 3
- **Severity**: HIGH
- **Suggested direction**: Check Harvard Business Review, Atlassian 
  research on meeting culture, or Microsoft Work Trend Index for recent 
  data on manager time allocation
- **Status**: open

## Medium Priority

### Meeting reduction case study
- **Details**: Find case study of company that reduced meeting time by 50%
- **Needed for**: Chapter 3
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
- **Suggested direction**: Search business publications for companies 
  that implemented meeting-free days or restructured meetings. Shopify's 
  2023 meeting reset might be relevant.
- **Status**: open

Example 2: Showing gaps to user

User: "Show research gaps"

Response:

Current research gaps (5 total):

HIGH PRIORITY (2):
1. Manager meeting time statistics (Chapter 3)
   Need: 2022-2024 data on manager time in meetings
   
2. Remote work adoption rates (Chapter 1)
   Need: Statistics on remote work growth 2020-2024

MEDIUM PRIORITY (2):
3. Meeting reduction case study (Chapter 3)
4. Async communication tool comparison (Chapter 5)

LOW PRIORITY (1):
5. Verify Peter Drucker quote attribution (Chapter 2)

Full details in research-gaps.md

Example 3: Marking gap as resolved

User: "Mark the meeting time statistics gap as resolved. I found data showing managers spend 23 hours/week in meetings according to a 2024 Harvard Business Review study."

Response: Update research-gaps.md:

## Resolved

### Manager meeting time statistics - Resolved 2025-10-18
- **Details**: Need data on manager time spent in meetings 2022-2024
- **Resolution**: Found HBR 2024 study: managers spend 23 hours/week 
  in meetings. Source: [citation details]
- **Applied to**: Chapter 3

Then:

git add research-gaps.md
git commit -m "Resolved: Manager meeting time statistics"

User commands

View gaps:

• "Show research gaps"
• "What research do I need?"
• "List high priority gaps"

Update gaps:

• "Track research needs" (scan chapters)
• "Update research gaps" (re-scan)

Mark resolved:

• "Mark [gap description] as resolved"
• "This research addresses [gap]: [information]"

Add manual gap:

• "Add research gap: [description] for chapter X, severity [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]"

Edge cases

No research markers found:

No [RESEARCH: ...] markers found in chapters. 
Either research needs haven't been flagged yet, or all necessary 
information is already available.

Marker missing severity:

Found marker without severity in Chapter [X]:
[RESEARCH: description]

Assuming MEDIUM severity. Please specify HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW in markers.

Gap description is vague: Flag it:

Note: Gap in Chapter [X] is vague: "Need more information"
Consider being more specific about what information is needed.

Duplicate gaps: If same gap appears in multiple chapters:

Note: This gap appears in Chapters [X, Y, Z]:
[description]

Consider this a cross-cutting research need - resolving it will benefit 
multiple chapters.

User provides research but gap unclear:

I can add this information, but which gap does it address?
Current gaps: [list]

Quality standards

Good research tracking:

• ✓ Specific descriptions of what's needed
• ✓ Appropriate severity levels
• ✓ Actionable suggested directions
• ✓ Clear chapter references
• ✓ Status tracking (open/in progress/resolved)

Poor research tracking:

• ✗ Vague: "Need more info"
• ✗ Wrong severity: marking everything HIGH
• ✗ No direction: just lists gaps without guidance
• ✗ Missing chapter references
• ✗ Never marking things resolved

Collaboration with other skills

Before this skill:

• draft-chapter creates chapters with research markers
• revise-chapter might add new gaps

After this skill:

• User conducts research
• revise-chapter incorporates findings and removes markers
• This skill re-scans to update gaps

Files read

• /chapters/*.md - All chapter files (to find markers)

Files created/modified

• research-gaps.md - Master research tracking file

Best practices

Do:

• Be specific in gap descriptions
• Suggest where to look for information
• Prioritize honestly (not everything is HIGH)
• Update when gaps are resolved
• Track cross-cutting needs that affect multiple chapters

Don't:

• Leave gaps vague
• Over-prioritize (if everything is HIGH, nothing is)
• Let resolved gaps clutter the active list
• Forget to note which chapters need the research
• Block writing on gaps - draft first, research later

Integration with writing workflow

Typical flow:

1. Draft chapter (markers added inline)
2. → Track research gaps (this skill)
3. User conducts research
4. Revise chapter (incorporate findings)
5. → Track research gaps (markers removed, gaps marked resolved)

Research doesn't block writing:

• Draft with gaps is better than no draft
• Gaps get addressed in revision
• Some gaps resolve themselves (you realize you don't need it)
• Priority helps focus on what truly matters