mirror of
https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-09-20 16:16:25 +03:00
Magnus HedemarkandGitHub
e863aab851
* feat: add research-methodology skill Signed-off-by: Magnus Hedemark <magnus919@pm.me> * fix: remove nonportable source assumptions Signed-off-by: Magnus Hedemark <magnus919@pm.me> --------- Signed-off-by: Magnus Hedemark <magnus919@pm.me>
60 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# Synthesis Patterns
|
|
|
|
Methods for combining findings from multiple sources into something more valuable than any single source.
|
|
|
|
## Thematic Synthesis
|
|
|
|
Best for: Combining qualitative findings, expert opinions, and case studies.
|
|
|
|
1. **Extract claims.** From each source, pull the specific claims relevant to your research question.
|
|
2. **Find patterns.** Group claims that point in the same direction. What themes emerge?
|
|
3. **Name each theme.** A good theme name is specific enough to be meaningful, broad enough to contain related claims.
|
|
4. **Support each theme.** List which sources support it, which contradict it, and which are neutral.
|
|
5. **Identify convergent and divergent themes.** Where do sources agree? Where do they disagree?
|
|
|
|
### Convergence Signals
|
|
|
|
| Signal | What it means |
|
|
|--------|--------------|
|
|
| 3+ independent sources agree | High confidence in the finding |
|
|
| Sources from different fields converge | Very high confidence — cross-validation across disciplines |
|
|
| Different methodologies produce same result | Method-independent finding |
|
|
| Even critics concede the point | Defensible claim |
|
|
|
|
### Divergence Signals
|
|
|
|
| Signal | What it means |
|
|
|--------|--------------|
|
|
| Sources disagree without clear pattern | Territory is unsettled — report both sides |
|
|
| Disagreement correlates with methodology | Methods may be driving results |
|
|
| Disagreement correlates with funding source | Conflict of interest may be a factor |
|
|
| Single source contradicts consensus | Investigate deeper — the outlier may be wrong or may have found something others missed |
|
|
|
|
## Lines of Argument
|
|
|
|
Best for: Building a case for or against a position.
|
|
|
|
1. **State the conclusion.** What are you trying to support?
|
|
2. **Build independent lines.** Each line of argument is a separate chain of reasoning that supports the conclusion. They should be as independent as possible.
|
|
3. **Test each line.** Does each line stand on its own evidence? Or do they share assumptions?
|
|
4. **Weight the lines.** Some lines are stronger than others. Score each: strong anchoring evidence, moderate supporting evidence, or weak circumstantial evidence.
|
|
5. **Cross-line consistency.** If multiple independent lines all point to the same conclusion, confidence is much higher than if they share a common assumption.
|
|
|
|
## Constant Comparison
|
|
|
|
Best for: Iterative research where findings emerge gradually.
|
|
|
|
1. **Start with the first source.** Extract initial themes.
|
|
2. **Compare each new source.** Does it confirm existing themes? Add new ones? Contradict?
|
|
3. **Update themes.** Refine, split, or merge themes as evidence accumulates.
|
|
4. **Test saturation.** Are new sources adding new themes or just confirming existing ones? When new sources stop adding new themes, you've reached saturation.
|
|
|
|
## The Convergence-Divergence Matrix
|
|
|
|
Map findings along two axes:
|
|
|
|
| | Convergent (sources agree) | Divergent (sources disagree) |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| **Well-evidenced** (many sources) | ⭐ High-confidence finding — report as solid | ⚠️ Active debate — report both sides with evidence weights |
|
|
| **Thinly-evidenced** (few sources) | 📌 Tentative finding — flag as provisional | 🔍 Gap — identify as area needing more research |
|