---
name: research-gap-assessment
description: Assess candidate research gaps against available literature and frame testable next steps without asserting unverified novelty.
---

# Research gap assessment

Use when a user asks what remains unknown, under-tested, or methodologically unresolved in a field. Define the domain, intended contribution, and the evidence needed to support a gap. Search broadly enough to challenge a candidate, including recent work and related terminology when sources are accessible; record search sources, dates, and limits.

## Assessment

Map what the retrieved work addresses by question, population or system, methods, outcomes, and conditions. Identify a specific mismatch between the question and the evidence: for example, inconsistent findings, a missing comparison, weak measurement, limited external validity, or a theoretical assumption without a suitable test. Link the proposed gap to actual studies and note counterexamples and competing explanations.

Distinguish absence of evidence in the searched sources from evidence that no work exists. A small corpus, inaccessible full texts, search limits, or rapidly changing literature may change the assessment. Do not claim priority, originality, feasibility, or publication readiness solely because a search did not find a match.

Turn promising gaps into candidate questions and feasible approaches. For each, explain why it matters, the evidence that would resolve it, a likely comparison or benchmark, and major obstacles or alternative outcomes. Rank only using stated criteria such as significance, tractability and evidential need; identify assumptions and dependencies.

## Deliverable and dependencies

Provide a concise evidence map, candidate gap statements with source links and uncertainty, and next verification steps. Use full text when the claim depends on a paper's methods or results. A preliminary map is not a systematic review; label whether the search was actually executed and disclose its coverage.