--- name: synthesize description: >- Deep cross-domain synthesis engine for the vault. Triggers on "synthesize X", "what do I know about X", "connect ideas about X", "cross-domain analysis of X", "map everything in the vault about X". Searches comprehensively, surfaces non-obvious patterns and tensions, then challenges the user to generate original thought. The vault should surprise you — if synthesis only confirms what you already think, it failed. argument-hint: "" allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, mcp__obsidian-vault__search_notes, mcp__obsidian-vault__read_note, mcp__obsidian-vault__read_multiple_notes, mcp__obsidian-vault__write_note, mcp__obsidian-vault__update_frontmatter --- Exhaust the vault's knowledge on a topic — across ALL domains — then act as Luhmann's communication partner: surface contradictions the user hasn't noticed, identify the hidden principle generalizing across examples, and demand original synthesis. This is not a retrieval tool. It is a thinking provocation. Science grounding: far transfer (Tempel & Frings 2024), generation effect (McCurdy et al. 2020), elaborative interrogation, desirable difficulty (Bjork & Bjork 2020). - User wants to understand what the vault collectively says about a concept - User is writing a Thought note and wants to pressure-test an idea - User is preparing a talk, essay, or decision and needs cross-domain ammunition - User says "synthesize X", "what do I know about X", "connect ideas about X" - User wants to find contradictions or gaps in their own thinking - User wants to process a single source note — use /process instead - User wants spaced repetition review — use /recall instead - User has a specific paper to analyze — use /paper instead - Topic is too narrow to generate cross-domain connections (single paper, single event) ## Stage 1: PARSE THE TOPIC Extract the core concept(s) from the user's input. Identify: - **Primary term**: the exact word(s) to search (e.g., "attention", "loss aversion") - **Synonyms / adjacent**: related terms likely to appear in notes (e.g., "focus", "salience", "bias") - **Domain anchors**: which domains likely hold relevant notes (ML, psychology, design, startup...) If the topic is ambiguous, briefly clarify before searching (one question max). ## Stage 2: PARALLEL SEARCH — run ALL of these simultaneously **MCP search (preferred):** ``` search_notes(query="PRIMARY TERM", limit=30) search_notes(query="SYNONYM 1", limit=15) search_notes(query="SYNONYM 2", limit=15) ``` **Grep fallback (if MCP unavailable):** ``` Grep(pattern="PRIMARY TERM", path="notes/", glob="*.md", output_mode="files_with_matches") Grep(pattern="#TAG-NAME", path="notes/", glob="*.md", output_mode="files_with_matches") Grep(pattern="\[\[.*PRIMARY TERM.*\]\]", path="notes/", glob="*.md", output_mode="files_with_matches") ``` **Also search:** - Thought notes referencing this topic: `Grep(pattern="PRIMARY TERM", path="notes/thoughts/", glob="*.md")` - Cross-domain appearances: search each domain folder separately to surface unexpected hits - Existing Term notes: `Grep(pattern="type: term", path="notes/", glob="*.md")` then filter Collect all matching file paths. Deduplicate. Aim for 15–25 notes across diverse domains. ## Stage 3: READ THE NOTES Read up to 20 most relevant notes using `read_multiple_notes` or individual `read_note` calls. Prioritize: 1. Thought notes (user's own synthesis — highest signal) 2. Term/Note notes (distilled concepts) 3. Paper/book/post notes with substantial content 4. Notes from UNEXPECTED domains (highest cross-domain value) While reading, track: - Key claims and insights - Domain of each note - Wikilinks that connect to the topic - Any explicit contradictions or tensions - Claims that could conflict with each other ## Stage 4: PRESENT THE SYNTHESIS Output this structure (adapt headings as needed, cut any section with nothing real to say): --- ## What the vault says about [TOPIC] ### Key insights [3–6 bullets. Each = one non-obvious claim distilled from multiple notes. Lead with the sharpest insight. No filler.] ### Cross-domain appearances [Table or bullet list: Domain → how the concept appears there. Include only non-obvious mappings — skip domains where the concept is trivially expected.] | Domain | How [topic] appears | |--------|---------------------| | [domain] | [specific claim from that note] | ### Agreements [What multiple notes converge on — the vault's "consensus". 2–4 bullets max.] ### Tensions & contradictions [Where notes disagree — including tensions the user may not have noticed. THIS IS THE MOST VALUABLE SECTION. If two notes from different domains make opposing claims, surface it explicitly. Quote the note titles.] ### Gaps [What's missing: questions the vault raises but doesn't answer, adjacent concepts not yet captured, domains that probably have something to say but no notes exist] --- ## Stage 5: CHALLENGE QUESTIONS — do NOT skip, do NOT soften Ask 3–4 questions. Make them uncomfortable. Reference the user's OWN notes by name. Rules for good challenge questions: - Anchor in specific vault evidence: "Your note [[(Thought) X]] claims Y, but [[(Paper) Z]] shows the opposite — which do you actually believe?" - Force abstraction: "These 4 examples from different domains all share [pattern]. Is there a general principle here that deserves its own Term note?" - Force disagreement: "What would someone who thinks [vault consensus claim] is WRONG say? Do you have any evidence for their view?" - Force transfer: "You have strong notes on [concept A] and [concept B]. How does [concept A] change your understanding of [concept B]?" **Wait for user responses before proceeding to Stage 6.** The vault should not just confirm what you know. If the synthesis has no tension and no surprises, say so explicitly: "I found strong consensus but no real tension — either the topic is genuinely settled, or the vault has a blind spot here." ## Stage 6: HELP CREATE OUTPUT (only if something emerged) ### If a new Thought emerged from the conversation: Help the user create a Thought note. Do NOT write it for them — Thoughts are where human understanding lives. Instead: 1. Ask: "What's the single sentence that captures the insight?" 2. Offer to create the note structure, leaving the content for them to fill 3. Generate the frontmatter + skeleton only Thought note template: ```markdown --- id: YYYYMMDDHHMMSS created_date: YYYY-MM-DD updated_date: YYYY-MM-DD type: thought processing_status: processed --- # (Thought) [Title] - **🏷️Tags** : #thought #[topic-tag] #MM-YYYY [ ](#anki-card) ## Notes [User fills this] ## Links - [[(Type) Source Note 1]] - [[(Type) Source Note 2]] ``` ### If a new Term should be extracted: Only propose this if the concept appeared across multiple notes but has no dedicated Term note. Create the Term note with: ```markdown --- id: YYYYMMDDHHMMSS created_date: YYYY-MM-DD updated_date: YYYY-MM-DD type: term processing_status: processed --- # (Term) [Concept Name] - **🏷️Tags** : #term #all-anki #[topic-tag] #MM-YYYY [ ](#anki-card) ## Notes [Distilled definition — Feynman-style: intuition first, formalism second] - [Key insight 1] - [Key insight 2] - **Example**: [concrete example] - **Cross-domain**: [where else this appears] ## Links - [[(Type) Source 1]] ``` ### Wikilink rule (always): Every internal reference must use the full filename stem including `(Type)` prefix: - Correct: `[[(Thought) My insight note]]` - Wrong: `[[My insight note]]` If unsure of the exact filename, search before linking. User: "synthesize everything about attention mechanisms" → Search returns: 3 ML papers on attention, 1 psychology note on selective attention, 1 design note on visual hierarchy, 1 thought note on "attention as resource allocation" → Cross-domain: ML attention ≠ psychological attention — but both involve a scoring function that weights inputs. Surface this non-obvious parallel. → Tension: vault's ML notes say "attention is O(n²)" (a problem), but the thought note says "the bottleneck IS the feature" — unresolved. → Challenge: "Your [[(Thought) Attention as resource allocation]] treats attention as scarce. But transformers have unlimited heads. Does scarcity still apply? What breaks?" User: "what do I know about loss aversion" → Search finds notes in: psychology, behavioral economics, startup, design (dark patterns) → Agreements: loss aversion is asymmetric (losses hurt ~2x more than gains) → Gap: no notes on whether loss aversion weakens with experience/expertise — ask if worth capturing → Challenge: "You have [[(Paper) Prospect Theory]] and [[(Post) Pricing psychology]]. Your startup notes apply this to pricing, but never to hiring. Where else in the vault could loss aversion explain something you attributed to something else?" User: "synthesize ML" → Too broad — ask: "ML is too wide to synthesize well. What angle? Scaling, optimization, architectures, learning theory, RL...?" Synthesis that produces no tension: → "Everything agrees that attention is useful." — This is not synthesis. Push harder: find the domains that don't agree, find the edge cases, find what the vault hasn't said. - **Too few notes** (< 3 relevant): Say so — "The vault is thin on this topic. Suggest reading X or running /paper-discover to build coverage." - **Topic too broad**: Ask user to narrow. One clarifying question, not a list. - **Only one domain represented**: Flag it — "All your notes on this come from ML. This might be a blind spot. Want me to /paper-discover adjacent psychology or design literature?" - **No tension found**: Report honestly. Don't manufacture fake contradictions. - **User disagrees with a challenge question**: Engage — don't retreat. The job is productive friction. - **User wants to skip challenge questions**: Gently push back once. "The questions are the point — skip them and you're just reading an index." Then respect their choice. $ARGUMENTS