gap-analysis

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Gap Analysis

This skill compares two pieces of content and produces a structured analysis of what differs, what is missing, and what the gaps mean — written in plain language for practical use.

> **Scope:** Produces prose and Markdown only. Does not write code, scripts, or formulas.

---

## Before Starting: Establish the Comparison Frame

Gap analysis only works if both documents and the comparison direction are clear. Before proceeding, confirm:

**What are the two things being compared?**
Label them clearly from the start. Common pairs:
- Document A (old version) vs. Document B (new version)
- Specification vs. Current implementation description
- Policy vs. Procedure
- Plan vs. Retrospective

**Which is the reference?**
The reference is the document against which the other is measured. Usually: the spec, the standard, the newer version, or the authoritative source. The other document is the subject — the one being evaluated for gaps.

If the user has not specified which is the reference, ask. Getting this backwards produces a useless analysis.

**What is the purpose of the analysis?**
The framing shapes what counts as a gap. Ask if not clear:
- Find coverage gaps (what topics the subject is missing)?
- Find conflicts (where the two documents disagree)?
- Find changes (what is different between versions)?
- All of the above?

---

## Reading Both Documents

Read the reference document first. Build a mental map of its structure and scope:
- What topics does it cover?
- What claims or requirements does it make?
- What sections, components, or elements does it contain?

Then read the subject document. For each element of the reference, evaluate the subject:
- Is this element present?
- If present, does it agree with the reference, or does it differ?
- If it differs, is the difference material or cosmetic?

Also note any elements in the subject that have no counterpart in the reference — these may be additions or scope creep, depending on context.

---

## Four Gap Categories

Classify every finding into one of four categories:

**Missing** — Something in the reference is entirely absent from the subject. The subject makes no mention of it.

Example: The spec requires a data retention policy; the implementation document has no section on retention.

**Conflicting** — Both documents address the same topic, but they say different or incompatible things.

Example: The policy says approvals require two signatories; the procedure shows a single-signatory form.

**Changed** — The subject covers the same topic as the reference but with a meaningful difference in scope, detail, emphasis, or specificity. Not necessarily wrong — may be intentional.

Example: The new version of a process removes a validation step that appeared in the old version.

**Added** — Something appears in the subject that is not in the reference. Flag these for awareness — they may represent intentional additions or unreviewed scope expansion.

Example: The updated procedure includes a new escalation path not described in the policy.

---

## Severity Tagging

For each finding, assign a severity:

**High** — This gap creates ambiguity, risk, contradiction, or incomplete coverage that would block someone trying to follow the documents. Examples: a conflicting requirement, a missing approval step, a scope that no longer matches.

**Medium** — This gap is significant but not blocking. Examples: a topic that is covered in one document but not the other, a meaningful change in approach that is not explained.

**Low** — This gap is informational. Examples: a formatting inconsistency, a minor change in emphasis, an added section that is uncontroversial.

Do not inflate severity to appear thorough. A long list of low-severity gaps is less useful than a short list of high-severity ones.

---

## Output Structure

```
# Gap Analysis: [Reference Document] vs. [Subject Document]

**Reference:** [Document name/version]
**Subject:** [Document name/version]
**Analysis purpose:** [Coverage gaps / Conflicts / Changes / All]
**Date of analysis:** [Date]

---

## Summary

[Two to four sentences: how many gaps were found, which categories had the most, what the overall picture looks like. Lead with the most important finding.]

---

## High-Priority Gaps

| # | Category | Description | Reference location | Subject location |
|---|----------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | Missing / Conflicting / Changed / Added | [Clear description of the gap] | [Section or element in reference] | [Section or element in subject, or "Not present"] |

---

## Medium-Priority Gaps

| # | Category | Description | Reference location | Subject location |
|---|----------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

From zrosenfield/sharepoint-ai-skills, MIT.

More from zrosenfield/sharepoint-ai-skills