Consensus Insight: Search → Synthesize → Save

Step 1: Search

Run consensus_search(query) with the user's research question. Use the question as-is for the query — do not over-optimize or narrow it unless the user asks.

Do NOT apply filters (year_min, year_max, study_types, etc.) unless the user explicitly requests them.

After receiving results, note:

• How many papers were returned
• Which have the highest citation counts
• Whether any papers appear highly relevant vs. tangential

Step 2: Synthesize

Build an evidence synthesis from the returned abstracts. Follow this structure exactly:

Study Characteristics Table

Only include papers where the abstract provides enough detail to extract these fields. It's fine to have fewer rows than total papers returned — quality over quantity.

Evidence Mapping Table

Every synthesis claim must fill every column. If a claim cannot be traced to a specific abstract quote, remove it.

Narrative Synthesis

Write 2-4 paragraphs that directly answer the user's research question.

Rules:

• Every factual claim must cite at least one paper in APA format: (Author et al., Year)
• Use hedged language: "abstracts suggest," "the available evidence indicates," never "research proves"
• Explicitly note contradictions and null findings — do not smooth them over
• Reference the Evidence Mapping table where appropriate
• Note where evidence is thin: "Only N papers addressed this aspect"
• Flag when studies differ in population/design and comparisons should be cautious

Verification Checklist

After drafting, perform this self-critique:

1. Citation grounding: For each claim, can I point to a row in the Evidence Mapping table? If no → remove.
2. Attribution accuracy: Re-read each cited abstract. Does it actually say what I attributed? If not → correct or remove.
3. Alignment check: Does the synthesis answer the user's original question? If drifted → refocus.
4. Hedging check: Are certainty levels appropriate for abstract-only evidence?
5. Completeness: Are contradictory/null findings represented?

Report briefly:

Verification: N claims checked, N citations verified, N adjustments made. Question addressed: Yes/Partially.

Step 3: Present and Ask

Display the full synthesis (tables + narrative + verification) to the user.

Then ask:

Would you like me to save this as an insight?

1. Yes, save as-is — save via save_insight
2. Save with edits — tell me what to change first
3. Skip

If saving: Call save_insight(project, source="consensus", topic="{brief-topic}", content={full synthesis including tables}, query={original question}).

Step 4: Offer Integrations

After the insight decision, offer:

I can also:

1. Add papers to Zotero — all cited / let me pick specific ones
2. Extract into argument map — identify propositions and relationships
3. Both
4. Skip

For Zotero: Call zotero_add_paper(project, doi, source="Consensus") for each selected paper. For argument map: Use extract_concepts(project, insight_id, extracted_data={...}) with propositions and relationships extracted from the synthesis.

What This Skill Is NOT

• Not a full literature review — use /lit-review for multi-source, multi-round landscape mapping
• Not a simple search — if the user just wants a list of papers, do a regular consensus_search without this skill
• The value is the verified synthesis — the tables, APA citations, and verification checklist that transform raw search results into a grounded insight