---

name: analyze-document description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze a document", "extract insights", "deep read", "what are the insights in this file", or wants more than a summary from a document. It reads a document and applies a structured analytical framework that surfaces non-obvious insights, tensions, actionable takeaways, and gaps — instead of producing a generic summary. allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep

Analyze Document

Purpose: Apply a structured analytical framework to any document, extracting non-obvious insights, tensions, actionable implications, and gaps — going far beyond a generic summary.

Usage

/analyze-document <file-path>

If no file path is provided, ask the user which document to analyze.

Instructions

Step 1: Read the Document

1. Read the target document using the provided file path
2. If the file has YAML frontmatter, note the type field for document-type detection in Step 3

Step 2: Apply the Core Analysis Framework

Analyze the document using these four lenses. Present each as its own section with clear findings:

1. Non-Obvious Insights (3-5)

Identify things that aren't stated explicitly but can be inferred from the content. Skip anything the author already highlights as a key point. Look for:

• Patterns that emerge across sections
• Second-order implications of what's stated
• Connections the author doesn't draw explicitly
• What the emphasis or word choice reveals

2. Tensions and Contradictions

Find where the argument conflicts with itself, or with conventional wisdom. Look for:

• Internal inconsistencies between sections
• Optimistic claims paired with cautious caveats
• Goals that conflict with stated constraints
• Assumptions that contradict evidence presented
• What's left unresolved

3. The "So What" (Single Actionable Takeaway)

If a smart, busy person could only take away one actionable implication from this document, what would it be and why? Commit to a single, prioritized takeaway — not a list of equally weighted points.

4. What's Missing

What question does this document raise but never answer? What would a reader want to know next? Look for:

• Unstated assumptions the argument depends on
• Evidence that would strengthen or weaken the claims
• Perspectives or stakeholders not represented
• Follow-up questions the document creates but doesn't address

Step 3: Apply Document-Type Modifier

Based on the frontmatter type field or the document's content, add one additional analytical lens:

| Document Type | Additional Analysis | |---|---| | meeting-notes, transcripts | Implicit decisions: What decision was implicitly made but never explicitly confirmed? What did everyone seem to agree on without anyone formally stating it? | | research, academic papers | Methodological assumptions: Flag any methodological choices that could meaningfully change the conclusions if done differently. What assumptions are baked into the approach? | | project, design-document, implementation-plan, strategy docs | Unstated dependencies: Identify the strongest unstated assumption this plan depends on. What must be true for this to succeed that nobody is questioning? | | policy, rfc, adr | Edge cases and failure modes: What scenarios would this policy/decision handle poorly? Where are the boundaries undefined? | | News articles, industry reports | Narrative framing: What narrative is this constructing, and what facts would complicate or undermine it? | | General / undetected | Skip the modifier — the core four lenses are sufficient. |

If the document type is ambiguous, make a best guess based on content and note the assumption.

Step 4: Suggest Follow-Up Directions

After the analysis, suggest 2-3 specific follow-up questions the user could ask to drill deeper, such as:

• "Tell me more about tension #2"
• "What evidence would validate insight #3?"
• "How does the missing piece in #4 affect the 'so what'?"

Output Format

## Document Analysis: [Document Title]

**Document type**: [detected type]
**Source**: [[wikilink to original]]

### Non-Obvious Insights

1. **[Insight title]** — [Explanation with evidence from the document]
2. ...

### Tensions and Contradictions

1. **[Tension title]** — [What conflicts and why it matters]
2. ...

### The "So What"

[Single paragraph with the one actionable takeaway and why it matters most]

### What's Missing

1. **[Gap title]** — [What's unanswered and why it matters]
2. ...

### [Document-Type Specific Section Title]

[Findings from the type-specific modifier]

---

**Dig deeper:**
- [Follow-up question 1]
- [Follow-up question 2]
- [Follow-up question 3]

Important Notes

• Do not summarize. The goal is analysis, not compression. Avoid restating what the document already says.
• Be specific. Reference particular sections, quotes, or data points from the document to support each finding.
• Be opinionated. Commit to claims rather than hedging with "it could be argued that..." — the user wants a sharp analytical lens, not equivocation.
• Respect the vault. Display the analysis in the conversation. Do not create new files unless the user asks to save the output.