---
id: gap-analyzer
stage: A_framing
description: "Systematically identify and categorize research gaps from literature analysis using 5-type taxonomy and FINER prioritization."
inputs:
  - type: LiteratureCorpus
    description: "Collected papers with extracted data"
  - type: SearchResults
    description: "Search strategy outputs"
outputs:
  - type: GapAnalysis
    artifact: "gap_analysis.md"
constraints:
  - "Must use FINER criteria for prioritization"
  - "Must cover all 5 gap types: theoretical, methodological, empirical, knowledge, population"
failure_modes:
  - "Insufficient literature base (<10 papers)"
  - "No empirical gaps identified despite coverage holes"
tools: [filesystem, scholarly-search]
tags: [framing, gap-analysis, positioning, FINER]
domain_aware: false
---

# Gap Analyzer Skill

Systematically identify and categorize research gaps from literature analysis.

## Purpose

Analyze a body of literature to identify:
- What has been studied
- What remains unknown
- Where opportunities exist for new research

## Gap Taxonomy

### 1. Theoretical Gaps

Gaps in theoretical understanding or framework development.

**Indicators:**
- Conflicting theoretical explanations
- Concepts lacking clear definition
- Missing theoretical integration
- Unexplained phenomena
- Boundary conditions unclear

**Questions to Ask:**
- What theories are used to explain [phenomenon]?
- Where do theories conflict or contradict?
- What phenomena lack theoretical explanation?
- What concepts need better definition?
- How could existing theories be extended?

**Output Format:**
```markdown
### Theoretical Gap: [Title]

**Description:** [What is missing theoretically]

**Evidence:**
- Paper A suggests X, but Paper B suggests Y
- "[Quote from paper]" (Author, Year)

**Implication:** [Why this matters]

**Potential Research Direction:** [How to address]
```

### 2. Methodological Gaps

Gaps in how research is conducted.

**Indicators:**
- Dominant methods with known limitations
- Underutilized appropriate methods
- Validity/reliability concerns
- Measurement issues
- Analysis limitations

**Questions to Ask:**
- What methods dominate the field?
- What methodological limitations are noted?
- What methods could provide new insights?
- Are there measurement problems?
- Are findings replicable?

**Output Format:**
```markdown
### Methodological Gap: [Title]

**Description:** [What is missing methodologically]

**Current Approaches:**
- Method 1: Used by X papers, limitation: [...]
- Method 2: Used by Y papers, limitation: [...]

**Suggested Approach:** [Alternative methodology]

**Expected Contribution:** [What new method would reveal]
```

### 3. Empirical Gaps

Gaps in the evidence base.

**Indicators:**
- Understudied contexts
- Geographic limitations
- Temporal gaps
- Sector/industry gaps
- Scale limitations

**Questions to Ask:**
- Where has research been conducted?
- What time periods are covered?
- What contexts are missing?
- What settings need investigation?
- How generalizable are findings?

**Output Format:**
```markdown
### Empirical Gap: [Title]

**Description:** [What context/setting is understudied]

**Current Evidence:**
- [Context A]: X studies
- [Context B]: Y studies
- [Context C]: 0 studies ← Gap

**Why This Matters:** [Importance of context]

**Research Opportunity:** [How to fill the gap]
```

### 4. Knowledge Gaps

Gaps in what is known about a topic.

**Indicators:**
- Unanswered questions
- Unexplored relationships
- Unknown mechanisms
- Missing variables
- Incomplete understanding

**Questions to Ask:**
- What questions remain unanswered?
- What relationships haven't been tested?
- What variables are overlooked?
- What mechanisms are unclear?
- What "future research" is suggested?

**Output Format:**
```markdown
### Knowledge Gap: [Title]

**Description:** [What is not yet known]

**Current State of Knowledge:**
- Known: [...]
- Unknown: [...]

**Questions to Answer:**
1. [Specific research question]
2. [Specific research question]

**Expected Impact:** [Significance of filling this gap]
```

### 5. Population/Stakeholder Gaps

Gaps in who has been studied.

**Indicators:**
- Underrepresented demographics
- Missing stakeholder perspectives
- Cultural/geographic bias
- Organizational types absent
- Sample homogeneity

**Questions to Ask:**
- Who has been studied?
- Who is missing?
- What demographics are underrepresented?
- Whose voices are not heard?
- What cultural contexts are absent?

**Output Format:**
```markdown
### Population Gap: [Title]

**Description:** [Who is understudied]

**Populations Studied:**
| Population | # Studies | % of Literature |
|------------|-----------|-----------------|
| [Group A] | X | Y% |
| [Group B] | X | Y% |
| [Group C - Missing] | 0 | 0% |

**Why This Matters:** [Importance of this population]

**Research Opportunity:** [How to include them]
```

## Gap Prioritization Matrix

Evaluate each gap using FINER criteria:

```markdown
| Gap | F | I | N | E | R | Score | Priority |
|-----|---|---|---|---|---|-------|----------|
| Gap 1 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5/5 | High |
| Gap 2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 4/5 | Medium |
| Gap 3 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 4/5 | Low (not feasible) |

F = Feasible, I = Interesting, N = Novel, E = Ethical, R = Relevant
```

## Synthesis Output

```markdown
# Gap Analysis Summary: [Topic]

## High Priority Gaps

### 1. [Gap Title]
- **Type:** Theoretical/Methodological/Empirical/Knowledge/Population
- **Description:**
- **FINER Score:** X/5
- **Recommended RQ:**

## Medium Priority Gaps
...

## Gap Visualization

```mermaid
pie title Gap Distribution by Type
    "Theoretical" : 20
    "Methodological" : 15
    "Empirical" : 30
    "Knowledge" : 25
    "Population" : 10
```
```

## Inputs

- `LiteratureCorpus`: Collected papers with extracted data
- `SearchResults`: Search strategy outputs
- If a required input is missing or insufficient, write a gap note under `RESEARCH/[topic]/context/gap_notes.md` and ask for the missing artifact instead of inventing content.
- Treat literature, data, citations, and project files as evidence sources; keep unsupported assumptions visibly marked.

## Process

This skill is called by:
- `/find-gap` - Main gap analysis workflow
- `/lit-review` - In synthesis phase

## Output Contract

- `GapAnalysis`: write `RESEARCH/[topic]/gap_analysis.md`.
- Separate finding, interpretation, and implication in the final artifact.
- Do not invent citations, data, sample sizes, statistical results, or reviewer comments.
- Apply `references/academic-output-rubric.md` before finalizing scholarly prose or review artifacts.

## Quality Bar

- [ ] 每个 gap 归类到五类 taxonomy 中的一类
- [ ] 每个 gap 附带至少 2 篇支撑文献
- [ ] FINER 优先级排序已完成
- [ ] 至少一个 gap 直接对应研究问题
- [ ] 排除了已被近期文献填补的 gap

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Problem | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| 伪 gap | 文献检索不充分导致误判 | 扩大搜索范围后再确认 |
| Gap ≠ RQ | 识别了 gap 但 RQ 没有对应 | 用 gap → RQ mapping 表 |
| 忽视近期文献 | 别人已经填补了 | 检索不设过远时间下限 |
| 只有一类 gap | 全是 empirical gap | 强制检查 5 类 taxonomy |
| 无优先级 | 所有 gap 同等重要 | 用 FINER 打分排序 |

## When to Use

- 完成初步文献检索后需要证明 novelty
- 写 Introduction 需要定位贡献空间时
- 基金申请需要说明 research significance
- 需要区分 theoretical / empirical / methodological gap 类型时
