---
name: research-gap-finder
description: Analyze scientific literature to identify research gaps and generate testable hypotheses. Use when users upload research papers (PDF), ask to "find research gaps", "generate hypotheses", "analyze literature", or "evaluate field progress". Works with single papers, multiple papers, or text abstracts.
version: 1.1.0
metadata:
  openclaw:
    requires:
      bins: []
    always: false
    emoji: "🔬"
    homepage: https://github.com/LengFeng00/research-gap-finder
---

# Research Gap Finder & Hypothesis Generator

A specialized skill for identifying research gaps and generating scientifically rigorous hypotheses from academic literature.

## Core Capabilities

This skill helps you:
- **Identify Research Gaps**: Methodological limitations, unexplored variables, theoretical contradictions, technical application gaps, interdisciplinary opportunities
- **Generate Testable Hypotheses**: Create scientifically valid, innovative, and impactful research hypotheses
- **Analyze Literature Depth**: From quick scans to comprehensive analysis
- **Evaluate Field Progress**: Assess the current state and future directions of research domains

## Analysis Process

### Phase 1: Input Analysis (5-10 minutes)

#### For Single Papers:
1. **Extract Key Information**
   - Research questions and objectives
   - Methodology and experimental design
   - Main findings and conclusions
   - Acknowledged limitations
   - Future work suggestions

2. **Identify Explicit Limitations**
   - Sample size and population constraints
   - Methodological boundaries
   - Technical limitations
   - Scope restrictions

#### For Multiple Papers:
1. **Synthesize Across Studies**
   - Common methodological approaches
   - Recurring limitations across studies
   - Contradictory findings
   - Temporal evolution of research
   - Geographic/cultural variations

### ✅ Phase 1 Validation Checkpoint

Before proceeding to Phase 2, verify:

**Input Quality Check**:
- [ ] Sufficient information extracted
- [ ] Explicit limitations identified
- [ ] Key findings clearly understood
- [ ] Future work suggestions noted

**Completeness Check**:
- [ ] At least 3-5 key pieces extracted per paper
- [ ] Limitations categorized
- [ ] Contradictions noted
- [ ] Research scope clearly defined

### Phase 2: Gap Identification (5-10 minutes)

Use systematic frameworks:

#### Methodology Gaps
- Measurement limitations (accuracy, precision, validity)
- Sample constraints (size, diversity, representativeness)
- Design limitations (correlation vs causation, short-term vs long-term)
- Technical constraints (equipment, computational power, analytical methods)

#### Theoretical Gaps
- Incomplete theoretical frameworks
- Unexplained phenomena
- Contradictory theoretical predictions
- Missing mediators or moderators
- Over-simplified models

#### Application Gaps
- Laboratory findings not translated to real-world settings
- Missing population subgroups
- Geographic or cultural limitations
- Scale-up challenges
- Integration with existing systems

#### Interdisciplinary Gaps
- Opportunities to apply methods from other fields
- Untapped theoretical frameworks from adjacent disciplines
- Cross-domain research opportunities
- Technology transfer possibilities

### ✅ Phase 2 Validation Checkpoint

Before proceeding to Phase 3, verify:

**Gap Coverage Check**:
- [ ] At least 3-5 gaps identified across categories
- [ ] Gaps categorized properly
- [ ] Severity levels assigned
- [ ] Evidence base identified

**Quality Check**:
- [ ] Gaps are specific and actionable
- [ ] Gaps grounded in literature
- [ ] Interdisciplinary connections identified
- [ ] High-priority gaps distinguished

### Phase 3: Hypothesis Generation (5-10 minutes)

For each gap, generate hypotheses:

#### Hypothesis Structure
```
Hypothesis: [Clear, testable statement]

Rationale:
- Based on: [Existing evidence + gap]
- Novelty: [What makes this innovative]
- Testability: [How to validate]

Quality Assessment:
- Innovation Score (1-5)
- Feasibility Score (1-5)
- Impact Score (1-5)
- Overall Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
```

### ✅ Phase 3 Validation Checkpoint

Before generating output, verify:

**Hypothesis Quality Check**:
- [ ] All hypotheses clearly testable
- [ ] Specific, measurable outcomes
- [ ] Innovation scores justified
- [ ] Feasibility scores realistic
- [ ] Impact scores grounded

**Completeness Check**:
- [ ] Each hypothesis linked to gap(s)
- [ ] Rationale explains connection
- [ ] Priority ranking logical
- [ ] 2-3 high-priority hypotheses identified

## Output Format

### Executive Summary (Markdown)
- Document information
- Key findings summary
- Detailed analysis (gaps + hypotheses)
- Priority recommendations
- Next steps

### Structured Data (JSON)
- Analysis metadata
- Research gaps (categorized)
- Hypotheses (with scores)
- Priority rankings

## Usage Guidelines

### Standard Analysis Mode (Default)
- Time: 15-20 minutes
- Output: 5-10 gaps, 3-5 hypotheses
- Use: Literature reviews, grant proposals

### Comprehensive Analysis Mode
- Time: 30+ minutes
- Output: 10-20 gaps, 5-10 hypotheses
- Use: Major grants, PhD planning

### Quick Scan Mode
- Time: 5-10 minutes
- Output: 3-5 gaps, 2-3 hypotheses
- Use: Initial exploration, meetings

## Error Handling

Comprehensive error handling for:
- Insufficient information
- Non-academic content
- Contradictory findings
- Language issues
- Overly broad topics

Quality fallback mechanisms ensure graceful degradation.

## Domain-Specific Considerations

Built-in expertise for:
1. Biomedical Research & Health Sciences
2. Computer Science & AI
3. Environmental Science & Climate
4. Social Sciences & Humanities
5. Engineering & Physical Sciences

## Advanced Features

- Comparative analysis across papers
- Field evolution tracking
- Interdisciplinary mapping
- Error recovery mechanisms
- Validation checkpoints

## Limitations

- Does not replace expert domain knowledge
- Hypotheses require validation
- Feasibility assessments are estimates
- Impact predictions are speculative

## Remember

This skill augments but does not replace human scientific expertise. Always validate hypotheses with domain experts and extensive literature review before committing significant research resources.