---
name: reconcile-research
description: Cross-document consistency audit across research outputs — find contradictions, stale assumptions, and gaps
type: research
version: v0.1
argument-hint: "[audit|fix] [all|icp|pricing|journey|enterprise|feedback|specs]"
---

# Reconcile Research — Cross-Document Consistency Audit

Invoke as `$reconcile-research`.

## Report-First Approval Gate

Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.

Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.

When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.

Checks that research documents tell a consistent story. Finds contradictions between ICP and pricing, stale assumptions that customer feedback has invalidated, journey stages that metrics don't cover, and other cross-document gaps. Think of it as a linter for research coherence rather than structure.

## Process

### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)

Before determining mode and scope, detect the app structure:

1. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of `research/`, scope the audit to that app.
2. If `research/` contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them. If the user hasn't specified a scope, reconcile per-app (each app's docs independently) plus cross-app checks.
3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).

When app scope `{app}` is active:
- Scan `research/{app}/` for documents instead of `research/`
- Also check `research/icp.md` (cross-app overview) for cross-references
- Specs are in `specs/{app}/` instead of `specs/`

### 1. Determine Mode and Scope

Parse `$ARGUMENTS`:

- **Mode**: `audit` (default, read-only) or `fix` (apply approved changes, write reconciliation report)
- **Scope**: `all` (default), `icp`, `pricing`, `journey`, `enterprise`, `feedback`, or `specs`

### 2. Inventory Research Documents

Scan `research/` for main documents. Skip files matching `*-search-log.md` and `*-interview.md` — these are raw logs, not assertion-bearing documents.

**Expected documents** (not all need to exist):
- `research/icp.md` (cross-app overview), `research/{app}/icp.md` (per-app)
- `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md`)
- `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{app}/journey-map.md`)
- `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{app}/metrics.md`)
- `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{app}/gtm.md`)
- `research/monetization.md` (or `research/{app}/monetization.md`)
- `research/enterprise-icp.md` (or `research/{app}/enterprise-icp.md`)
- `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{app}/customer-feedback.md`)

When `research/` contains subdirectories, scan each `research/{app}/` for per-app documents.

**Stop condition**: If fewer than 2 research documents exist, display a message and exit — there's nothing to reconcile.

### 3. Extract Claims

Launch a **subagent per document** to extract structured claims. Each subagent reads one file and returns claims in these categories:

| Category | Examples |
|----------|----------|
| **ICP targets** | Primary persona, company size, industry, geography |
| **Pain points** | Problems the product solves, severity rankings |
| **Budget signals** | Willingness to pay, price sensitivity, deal size |
| **Channels** | Acquisition channels, distribution strategy |
| **Messaging** | Value propositions, positioning statements |
| **Pricing** | Model type, price points, tier structure, usage limits |
| **Journey stages** | Stage names, transitions, aha moments, activation criteria |
| **Metrics** | North star, per-stage metrics, thresholds |
| **Competitors** | Named competitors, positioning relative to them |
| **Deal-killers** | Enterprise blockers, compliance requirements |
| **Feedback verdicts** | Validated assumptions, invalidated assumptions, new findings |

Each claim includes the source file, section heading, and a direct quote for traceability.

### 4. Cross-Reference Checks

Launch **subagents per scope group** to run pairwise checks. Only run checks where both documents in a pair exist.

#### `icp` scope — ICP vs all downstream (11 checks)

Requires: `research/icp.md` + at least one downstream document.

| # | Check | Documents | What to flag |
|---|-------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | User profile consistency | ICP ↔ Journey Map | Journey references personas not defined in ICP |
| 2 | Pain point coverage | ICP ↔ Competitive Analysis | Competitive analysis addresses pains not in ICP, or misses ICP pains |
| 3 | Pain point → feature mapping | ICP ↔ Journey Map | Journey stages that don't map to any ICP pain point |
| 4 | Budget signal → pricing alignment | ICP ↔ Monetization | Pricing exceeds ICP budget signals, or ignores stated willingness-to-pay |
| 5 | Channel consistency | ICP ↔ GTM | GTM targets channels the ICP doesn't use, or misses primary ICP channels |
| 6 | Messaging ↔ value prop alignment | ICP ↔ GTM | GTM messaging doesn't reflect ICP's top pain points or value props |
| 7 | Market landscape agreement | ICP ↔ Competitive Analysis | ICP market sizing contradicts competitive analysis market data |
| 8 | Feedback invalidation | ICP ↔ Customer Feedback | Feedback explicitly invalidates ICP assumptions still stated as fact |
| 9 | Metric coverage of ICP goals | ICP ↔ Metrics | ICP success criteria not tracked by any metric |
| 10 | ICP ↔ enterprise profile conflicts | ICP ↔ Enterprise ICP | Base ICP and enterprise ICP contradict on overlapping fields |
| 11 | Geography/segment consistency | ICP ↔ GTM | GTM targets geographies or segments not mentioned in ICP |

#### `pricing` scope — GTM vs Monetization coherence (7 checks)

Requires: `research/gtm.md` + `research/monetization.md`.

| # | Check | What to flag |
|---|-------|--------------|
| 1 | Revenue model agreement | GTM and Monetization describe different revenue models |
| 2 | Price point consistency | GTM pricing references don't match Monetization's price points |
| 3 | Tier structure alignment | GTM tier names/features don't match Monetization tier definitions |
| 4 | Upgrade trigger consistency | GTM conversion triggers contradict Monetization's upgrade triggers |
| 5 | Expansion metric alignment | GTM growth metrics don't match Monetization's expansion revenue drivers |
| 6 | Aha moment → pricing gate | Monetization gates features before the aha moment defined in Journey Map |
| 7 | Free tier scope | GTM's free tier description contradicts Monetization's free tier limits |

#### `journey` scope — Journey Map vs Metrics/GTM/Monetization (7 checks)

Requires: `research/journey-map.md` + at least one of Metrics/GTM/Monetization.

| # | Check | What to flag |
|---|-------|--------------|
| 1 | Stage name consistency | Metrics or GTM reference journey stages by different names |
| 2 | Metric coverage per stage | Journey stages with no corresponding metric in Metrics |
| 3 | Aha moment agreement | Journey Map, Metrics, and Monetization define different aha moments |
| 4 | Activation criteria consistency | Journey Map activation ≠ Metrics activation definition |
| 5 | Channel → stage mapping | GTM channels don't map to the discovery/awareness stages in Journey Map |
| 6 | Conversion trigger alignment | Journey Map conversion triggers ≠ GTM conversion triggers |
| 7 | Retention stage coverage | Journey Map has retention stages that Metrics doesn't track |

#### `enterprise` scope — Enterprise ICP vs base docs (6 checks)

Requires: `research/enterprise-icp.md` + at least one base document.

| # | Check | What to flag |
|---|-------|--------------|
| 1 | Profile field conflicts | Enterprise ICP contradicts base ICP on overlapping demographics |
| 2 | Deal-killer coverage | Enterprise deal-killers not addressed in Journey Map or Monetization |
| 3 | Stakeholder journey gaps | Enterprise stakeholders have no corresponding journey in Journey Map |
| 4 | Pricing tier fit | Monetization tiers don't include an enterprise tier matching Enterprise ICP needs |
| 5 | Lifecycle stage coverage | Enterprise evaluation→deployment→renewal lifecycle not reflected in Metrics |
| 6 | Compliance gap propagation | Enterprise compliance requirements not reflected in scale-audit or journey |

#### `feedback` scope — Customer Feedback propagation (5 checks)

Requires: `research/customer-feedback.md` + at least one other document.

| # | Check | What to flag |
|---|-------|--------------|
| 1 | Invalidated assumptions still present | Feedback marks an assumption as invalidated, but the source doc still states it as fact |
| 2 | New findings not captured | Feedback identifies new pain points or personas not reflected upstream |
| 3 | Severity mismatches | Feedback downgrades a pain point's severity, but ICP still lists it as primary |
| 4 | Staleness alerts | Documents haven't been updated since feedback was last appended |
| 5 | Contradicted positioning | Feedback contradicts GTM messaging or competitive positioning |

#### Monorepo checks (3 checks)

Triggered when `research/` contains app subdirectories (e.g., `research/{app}/icp.md`).

| # | Check | What to flag |
|---|-------|--------------|
| 1 | Cross-ICP consistency | App-specific ICPs (`research/{app}/icp.md`) contradict each other on shared market assumptions |
| 2 | Shared pain point divergence | Same pain point described differently across app ICPs |
| 3 | Channel overlap conflicts | App ICPs target the same channel with conflicting messaging |

### 5. Aggregate and Classify Findings

Collect all findings from the cross-reference subagents. Classify each by severity:

| Severity | Meaning | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| **Error** | Active contradiction — two documents assert incompatible facts | ICP says "SMB $50/mo budget" but Monetization's cheapest tier is $200/mo |
| **Warning** | Stale or gap — may be intentional but should be reviewed | Journey Map defines 5 stages but Metrics only covers 3 |
| **Info** | Suggestion — not wrong, but could be improved | GTM mentions a channel not discussed in ICP (may be a valid expansion) |

### 6. Walk Through Findings Interactively

Present findings **one at a time** using `request_user_input` (in Plan mode) or a plain-text question (otherwise), ordered by severity (Errors first, then Warnings, then Info). For each finding, present:

```
### [Scope] — [Check Name]
**Severity**: Error | Warning | Info
**Documents**: file-a.md ↔ file-b.md

**file-a.md** says:
> [direct quote from source]

**file-b.md** says:
> [direct quote from source]

**Contradiction**: [one-sentence description of the conflict]
**Recommended resolution**: [which document to update and why, based on dependency direction]

How would you like to resolve this? (Options: accept recommendation, update the other document instead, skip/defer, or provide custom instructions)
```

**Dependency direction** informs the recommended resolution:
- Upstream contradiction (e.g., ICP vs Journey Map) → recommend updating the downstream document
- Customer feedback contradictions → recommend updating upstream (feedback is ground truth)
- Peer contradictions (e.g., GTM vs Monetization) → note both are peers and ask which is authoritative

Wait for the user's response before proceeding to the next finding. Collect all decisions into a resolution list.

### 7. Apply Resolutions

After walking through all findings:

- **Audit mode** (default): Compile a summary of all findings and user decisions. Do not modify any files. Display the summary with the user's stated resolution for each item.
- **Fix mode** (if `fix` was specified):
  1. For each existing research document that will be replaced or substantively rewritten, archive the current file first, then apply the user-approved change to the canonical research document.
  2. Write `research/reconciliation-report.md` as an audit trail:

```markdown
# Reconciliation Report — [date]

## Resolved
- [Error/Warning description] — resolved by archiving and updating [file] per user decision: "[user's stated resolution]"

## Deferred
- [Description] — user chose to skip

## Info (no action)
- [Info items the user chose not to act on]
```

  3. Re-run the audit to confirm fixes resolved the flagged issues.

### 8. Populate Next Steps

After presenting findings (audit mode) or applying resolutions (fix mode), display a `## Next Steps` section with a **Recommended** item and **Other options**. Use this format:

## Next Steps

**Recommended:** [skill with most conflicts] — [N] conflicts traced to this document; re-running it will resolve the most inconsistencies at once

Other options:
- `$skill` — [N] conflicts in [scope] (re-run to fix)
- ...

**Recommendation logic:** Identify the skill that produced the document with the most Error/Warning-severity conflicts. That skill is the recommendation — re-running it with current upstream context will resolve the most issues. List other conflict-bearing skills as alternatives, ordered by conflict count descending. If audit mode found only deferred items, or fix mode resolved every actionable conflict, recommend `$research-roadmap` — check overall project status. If no conflicts, deferred items, or follow-up work remain, explicitly state "No follow-up skill recommended" instead of inventing work.

## Task Classification

When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:

- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.

## Constraints

- **Read-only by default.** Only modify files when explicitly invoked with `fix` mode.
- **Never auto-resolve contradictions.** Errors always require user input on which side is correct. Use `request_user_input` (or plain-text question) for each finding individually.
- **Show evidence.** Every finding must include direct quotes from both documents.
- **Respect dependency direction.** Upstream documents are presumed authoritative over downstream, except customer feedback which is ground truth.
- **No false positives.** If uncertain whether something is a real contradiction, classify it as Info, not Error.
- **Skip absent documents.** Only run checks where both documents in a pair exist. Never flag a missing document as an error — that's `$research-roadmap`'s job.
- **Use subagents** for claim extraction (one per document) and cross-reference checks (one per scope group) to parallelize work.
- **Idempotent.** Running audit twice with no changes between should produce identical output.

## Alignment Page

Follow the shared Alignment Page convention in CLAUDE.md. Output: `alignment/reconcile-research-{topic}.html`.

## Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.
