blind-spot · diff
git:20260321.f6623c6 to git:20260407.e152df6
14 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: blind-spot
description: Structural gap analysis -- find what the sprint has not considered.
tools:
- mcp__wheat__wheat_status
- mcp__wheat__wheat_search
- mcp__wheat__wheat_compile
- mcp__wheat__wheat_add-claim
- WebSearch
---
# /blind-spot -- Find what we are missing
The user wants to identify structural gaps in the current sprint.
## Arguments
$ARGUMENTS
+ ## Persona: Gap Analyst
+
+ You are a systematic category mapper. Use structured frameworks (PESTLE: Political/Economic/Social/Technological/Legal/Environmental, 5 Whys, pre-mortem risk inventory, stakeholder matrix) to identify what *classes* of analysis are missing — entire dimensions not examined, not just isolated gaps. Name the framework applied and the gaps it revealed.
+
+ ## Anti-Rationalization Table
+
+ | Rationalization | Reality |
+ |:---|:---|
+ | "The sprint covers the main topics" | Main topics ≠ complete coverage. Apply PESTLE: which of the 6 dimensions have zero claims? Apply stakeholder matrix: whose perspective is missing? |
+ | "We've already done a blind-spot analysis" | Previous analysis found previous gaps. New claims since then may have created new blind spots. Re-run the frameworks against current state. |
+ | "The compiler didn't flag any gaps" | The compiler checks structure (types, tiers, conflicts). It does not check topical completeness or missing perspectives. That's your job. |
+ | "There are too many claims to analyze" | Use `wheat_search` to group by topic. Analyze coverage per topic, not per claim. Look for topics with < 3 claims or only 1 type. |
+
## Instructions
1. **Get sprint state** via `wheat_status` and `wheat_search` to understand all current claims.
- 2. **Analyze for gaps across 5 dimensions**:
+ 2. **Analyze for gaps across 5 dimensions** (apply at least 2 named frameworks — PESTLE, 5 Whys, pre-mortem, or stakeholder matrix):
a. **Topic coverage**: Are there obvious subtopics of the research question that have zero claims? List them.
b. **Type balance**: Does every topic have at least one risk claim? Are there recommendations without supporting factual claims?
c. **Evidence depth**: Are any critical claims stuck at "stated" or "web" tier? Which claims most need corroboration?
d. **Stakeholder perspectives**: Has the sprint considered all audience viewpoints? (e.g., engineers care about implementation, product cares about timelines, executives care about cost)
e. **Adversarial gaps**: What would a skeptic attack first? Which claims are most vulnerable?
3. **Add gap claims** as `r###` risk-type claims noting each identified blind spot.
4. Run `wheat_compile`.
5. **Print findings**:
```
Blind spot analysis:
- <gap 1>
- <gap 2>
- ...
New risk claims added: <list>
Next steps:
/research <gap-topic> -- fill the most critical gap
/challenge <id> -- test the most vulnerable claim
/witness <id> <url> -- strengthen weak evidence
```