Knowledge Map

How to Use

Invoke this skill with your papers:

/knowledge-map

Create a knowledge map across these papers on [topic]:
[list of papers or paths]

Analysis Instructions

Presentation Format

CRITICAL: Present as a clean outline, not prose paragraphs.

Use hierarchical structure:

• Main headings
• Sub-points with bullets
• Citations inline: [Author, Year]
• No narrative paragraphs

Section 1: Central Claim

Identify the single proposition that most of this field's work tries to support, challenge, or refine.

If there is one unifying center:

• State it clearly as a declarative proposition
• Note what percentage of papers engage with it
• Explain what makes it central

If there are competing centers (field is divided):

• Name 2 competing central propositions
• Explain the fundamental division
• Note which papers align with which center

Format:

CENTRAL CLAIM: [Single proposition]
- Engaged by: [X]% of papers
- Why central: [Brief explanation]

OR

COMPETING CENTERS:
  Center A: [Proposition]
    - Supported by: [Paper 1], [Paper 2]
  Center B: [Alternative proposition]
    - Supported by: [Paper 3], [Paper 4]
  Fundamental division: [What they disagree about]

Section 2: Supporting Pillars (3-5)

Identify well-established sub-claims with strong evidentiary support across multiple papers.

These are:

• Widely accepted findings
• Robustly supported by evidence
• Treated as building blocks by other research
• Not seriously contested in this literature

For each pillar:

• State the claim (one sentence)
• Cite 2+ supporting papers
• Briefly note evidence type (experimental, observational, meta-analytic, etc.)

Format:

PILLAR 1: [Sub-claim statement]
  - Supported by: [Paper 1], [Paper 2], [Paper 3]
  - Evidence type: [Experimental / Meta-analytic / etc.]

PILLAR 2: [Sub-claim statement]
  - Supported by: [Paper 1], [Paper 2]
  - Evidence type: [Type]

Section 3: Contested Zones (2-3)

Identify areas of genuine, active disagreement.

These are:

• Questions where researchers take incompatible positions
• Debates that appear across multiple papers
• Unresolved empirical or theoretical disputes

For each contested zone:

• Name the issue being debated
• State Position A vs. Position B (no paper citations here)
• Briefly note what the disagreement hinges on

Format:

CONTESTED ZONE 1: [Issue being debated]
  - Position A: [What one side argues]
  - Position B: [What the other side argues]
  - Hinge point: [What they fundamentally disagree about]

CONTESTED ZONE 2: [Issue]
  - Position A: [Argument]
  - Position B: [Counter-argument]
  - Hinge point: [Core disagreement]

Section 4: Frontier Questions (1-2)

Questions this literature raises but cannot yet answer.

These are:

• Explicitly posed as open questions in papers
• Implied by limitations or gaps in current work
• Represent the boundaries of current knowledge

Format as explicit questions:

FRONTIER QUESTION 1: [Specific question that papers raise but don't answer?]
  - Why unanswered: [Methodological / empirical / theoretical barrier]

FRONTIER QUESTION 2: [Specific question?]
  - Why unanswered: [Barrier]

Section 5: Newcomer Reading List (3 papers)

The 3 papers a newcomer should read first to understand this field.

Selection criteria:

• Foundational to the field (not just most cited)
• Covers essential concepts or methods
• Accessible and well-written
• Provides necessary background for other papers

For each paper:

• Full citation: [Author, Year] - [Title]
• Why to read this first (one sentence)

Format:

NEWCOMER READING LIST:

1. [Author, Year] - [Paper title]
   - Why read this: [One sentence explaining its foundational role]

2. [Author, Year] - [Paper title]
   - Why read this: [One sentence]

3. [Author, Year] - [Paper title]
   - Why read this: [One sentence]

Important Guidelines

• No prose paragraphs - use outline format throughout
• Be hierarchical - use clear visual structure
• Be selective - 3-5 pillars, not 10; 2-3 contested zones, not 7
• Cite evidence - every pillar needs 2+ paper citations
• Be newcomer-focused - reading list should be genuinely accessible, not exhaustive
• Be structural - map the intellectual architecture, not every detail

Output Format

Use the template to create the knowledge map outline.

Next Steps

After creating the knowledge map:

• Use it to orient new researchers or students
• Identify where your work fits in the map
• Use contested zones and frontier questions to motivate new research
• Share with colleagues to validate or debate the structure