Synthesize Research
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are
connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Synthesize user research from multiple sources into structured
insights and recommendations.
Usage
/synthesize-research $ARGUMENTS
Workflow
Accept research from any combination of:
- Pasted text: Interview notes, transcripts, survey
responses, feedback
- Uploaded files: Research documents, spreadsheets,
recordings summaries
- ~~knowledge base (if connected): Search for
research documents, interview notes, survey results
- ~~user feedback (if connected): Pull recent support
tickets, feature requests, bug reports
- ~~product analytics (if connected): Pull usage
data, funnel metrics, behavioral data
- ~~meeting transcription (if connected): Pull
interview recordings, meeting summaries, and discussion notes
Ask the user what they have:
- What type of research? (interviews, surveys, usability tests,
analytics, support tickets, sales call notes)
- How many sources / participants?
- Is there a specific question or hypothesis they are
investigating?
- What decisions will this research inform?
2. Process the Research
For each source, extract:
- Key observations: What did users say, do, or
experience?
- Quotes: Verbatim quotes that illustrate important
points
- Behaviors: What users actually did (vs what they
said they do)
- Pain points: Frustrations, workarounds, and unmet
needs
- Positive signals: What works well, moments of
delight
- Context: User segment, use case, experience
level
3. Identify Themes and
Patterns
Apply thematic analysis — see Research Synthesis
Methodology below for detailed guidance on thematic analysis,
affinity mapping, and triangulation techniques.
Group observations into themes, count frequency across participants,
and assess impact severity. Note contradictions and surprises.
Create a priority matrix:
- High frequency + High impact: Top priority
findings
- Low frequency + High impact: Important for specific
segments
- High frequency + Low impact: Quality-of-life
improvements
- Low frequency + Low impact: Note but
deprioritize
4. Generate the Synthesis
Produce a structured research synthesis:
Research Overview
- Methodology: what types of research, how many
participants/sources
- Research question(s): what we set out to learn
- Timeframe: when the research was conducted
Key Findings
For each major finding (aim for 5-8):
- Finding statement: One clear sentence describing
the insight
- Evidence: Supporting quotes, data points, or
observations (with source attribution)
- Frequency: How many participants/sources support
this finding
- Impact: How significantly this affects the user
experience or business
- Confidence level: High (strong evidence), Medium
(suggestive), Low (early signal)
Order findings by priority (frequency x impact).
User Segments / Personas
If the research reveals distinct user segments:
- Segment name and description
- Key characteristics and behaviors
- Unique needs and pain points
- Size estimate if data is available
Opportunity Areas
Based on the findings, identify opportunity areas:
- What user needs are unmet or underserved
- Where do current solutions fall short
- What new capabilities would unlock value
- Prioritized by potential impact
Recommendations
Specific, actionable recommendations:
- What to build, change, or investigate further
- Tied back to specific findings
- Prioritized by impact and feasibility
Open Questions
What the research did not answer:
- Gaps in understanding
- Areas needing further investigation
- Suggested follow-up research methods
5. Review and Extend
After generating the synthesis:
- Ask if any findings need more detail or different framing
- Offer to generate specific artifacts: persona documents, opportunity
maps, research presentations
- Offer to create follow-up research plans for open questions
- Offer to draft product implications (how findings should influence
the roadmap)
Research Synthesis
Methodology
Thematic Analysis
The core method for synthesizing qualitative research:
- Familiarization: Read through all the data. Get a
feel for the overall landscape before coding anything.
- Initial coding: Go through the data systematically.
Tag each observation, quote, or data point with descriptive codes. Be
generous with codes — it is easier to merge than to split later.
- Theme development: Group related codes into
candidate themes. A theme captures something important about the data in
relation to the research question.
- Theme review: Check themes against the data. Does
each theme have sufficient evidence? Are themes distinct from each
other? Do they tell a coherent story?
- Theme refinement: Define and name each theme
clearly. Write a 1-2 sentence description of what each theme
captures.
- Report: Write up the themes as findings with
supporting evidence.
Affinity Mapping
A collaborative method for grouping observations:
- Capture observations: Write each distinct
observation, quote, or data point as a separate note
- Cluster: Group related notes together based on
similarity. Do not pre-define categories — let them emerge from the
data.
- Label clusters: Give each cluster a descriptive
name that captures the common thread
- Organize clusters: Arrange clusters into
higher-level groups if patterns emerge
- Identify themes: The clusters and their
relationships reveal the key themes
Tips for affinity mapping:
- One observation per note. Do not combine multiple insights.
- Move notes between clusters freely. The first grouping is rarely the
best.
- If a cluster gets too large, it probably contains multiple themes.
Split it.
- Outliers are interesting. Do not force every observation into a
cluster.
- The process of grouping is as valuable as the output. It builds
shared understanding.
Triangulation
Strengthen findings by combining multiple data sources:
- Methodological triangulation: Same question,
different methods (interviews + survey + analytics)
- Source triangulation: Same method, different
participants or segments
- Temporal triangulation: Same observation at
different points in time
A finding supported by multiple sources and methods is much stronger
than one supported by a single source. When sources disagree, that is
interesting — it may reveal different user segments or contexts.
Interview Note Analysis
For each interview, identify:
Observations: What did the participant describe
doing, experiencing, or feeling?
- Distinguish between behaviors (what they do) and attitudes (what
they think/feel)
- Note context: when, where, with whom, how often
- Flag workarounds — these are unmet needs in disguise
Direct quotes: Verbatim statements that powerfully
illustrate a point
- Good quotes are specific and vivid, not generic
- Attribute to participant type, not name: "Enterprise admin,
200-person team" not "Sarah"
- A quote is evidence, not a finding. The finding is your
interpretation of what the quote means.
Behaviors vs stated preferences: What people DO
often differs from what they SAY they want
- Behavioral observations are stronger evidence than stated
preferences
- If a participant says "I want feature X" but their workflow shows
they never use similar features, note the contradiction
- Look for revealed preferences through actual behavior
Signals of intensity: How much does this matter to
the participant?
- Emotional language: frustration, excitement, resignation
- Frequency: how often do they encounter this issue
- Workarounds: how much effort do they expend working around the
problem
- Impact: what is the consequence when things go wrong
Cross-Interview Analysis
After processing individual interviews:
- Look for patterns: which observations appear across multiple
participants?
- Note frequency: how many participants mentioned each theme?
- Identify segments: do different types of users have different
patterns?
- Surface contradictions: where do participants disagree? This often
reveals meaningful segments.
- Find surprises: what challenged your prior assumptions?
Survey Data Interpretation
Quantitative Survey Analysis
- Response rate: How representative is the sample?
Low response rates may introduce bias.
- Distribution: Look at the shape of responses, not
just averages. A bimodal distribution (lots of 1s and 5s) tells a
different story than a normal distribution (lots of 3s).
- Segmentation: Break down responses by user segment.
Aggregates can mask important differences.
- Statistical significance: For small samples, be
cautious about drawing conclusions from small differences.
- Benchmark comparison: How do scores compare to
industry benchmarks or previous surveys?
Open-Ended Survey Response
Analysis
- Treat open-ended responses like mini interview notes
- Code each response with themes
- Count frequency of themes across responses
- Pull representative quotes for each theme
- Look for themes that appear in open-ended responses but not in
structured questions — these are things you did not think to ask
about
Common Survey Analysis
Mistakes
- Reporting averages without distributions. A 3.5 average could mean
everyone is lukewarm or half love it and half hate it.
- Ignoring non-response bias. The people who did not respond may be
systematically different.
- Over-interpreting small differences. A 0.1 point change in NPS is
noise, not signal.
- Treating Likert scales as interval data. The difference between
"Strongly Agree" and "Agree" is not necessarily the same as between
"Agree" and "Neutral."
- Confusing correlation with causation in cross-tabulations.
Combining
Qualitative and Quantitative Insights
The Qual-Quant Feedback Loop
- Qualitative first: Interviews and observation
reveal WHAT is happening and WHY. They generate hypotheses.
- Quantitative validation: Surveys and analytics
reveal HOW MUCH and HOW MANY. They test hypotheses at scale.
- Qualitative deep-dive: Return to qualitative
methods to understand unexpected quantitative findings.
Integration Strategies
- Use quantitative data to prioritize qualitative findings. A theme
from interviews is more important if usage data shows it affects many
users.
- Use qualitative data to explain quantitative anomalies. A drop in
retention is a number; interviews reveal it is because of a confusing
onboarding change.
- Present combined evidence: "47% of surveyed users report difficulty
with X (survey), and interviews reveal this is because Y (qualitative
finding)."
When Sources Disagree
- Quantitative and qualitative sources may tell different stories.
This is signal, not error.
- Check if the disagreement is due to different populations being
measured
- Check if stated preferences (survey) differ from actual behavior
(analytics)
- Check if the quantitative question captured what you think it
captured
- Report the disagreement honestly and investigate further rather than
choosing one source
Persona Development from
Research
Building Evidence-Based
Personas
Personas should emerge from research data, not imagination:
- Identify behavioral patterns: Look for clusters of
similar behaviors, goals, and contexts across participants
- Define distinguishing variables: What dimensions
differentiate one cluster from another? (e.g., company size, technical
skill, usage frequency, primary use case)
- Create persona profiles: For each behavioral
cluster:
- Name and brief description
- Key behaviors and goals
- Pain points and needs
- Context (role, company, tools used)
- Representative quotes
- Validate with data: Can you size each persona
segment using quantitative data?
Persona Template
[Persona Name] — [One-line description]
Who they are:
- Role, company type/size, experience level
- How they found/started using the product
What they are trying to accomplish:
- Primary goals and jobs to be done
- How they measure success
How they use the product:
- Frequency and depth of usage
- Key workflows and features used
- Tools they use alongside this product
Key pain points:
- Top 3 frustrations or unmet needs
- Workarounds they have developed
What they value:
- What matters most in a solution
- What would make them switch or churn
Representative quotes:
- 2-3 verbatim quotes that capture this persona's perspective
Common Persona Mistakes
- Demographic personas: defining by age/gender/location instead of
behavior. Behavior predicts product needs better than demographics.
- Too many personas: 3-5 is the sweet spot. More than that and they
are not actionable.
- Fictional personas: made up based on assumptions rather than
research data.
- Static personas: never updated as the product and market
evolve.
- Personas without implications: a persona that does not change any
product decisions is not useful.
Opportunity Sizing
Estimating Opportunity Size
For each research finding or opportunity area, estimate:
- Addressable users: How many users could benefit
from addressing this? Use product analytics, survey data, or market data
to estimate.
- Frequency: How often do affected users encounter
this issue? (Daily, weekly, monthly, one-time)
- Severity: How much does this issue impact users
when it occurs? (Blocker, significant friction, minor annoyance)
- Willingness to pay: Would addressing this drive
upgrades, retention, or new customer acquisition?
Opportunity Scoring
Score opportunities on a simple matrix:
- Impact: (Users affected) x (Frequency) x (Severity)
= impact score
- Evidence strength: How confident are we in the
finding? (Multiple sources > single source, behavioral data >
stated preferences)
- Strategic alignment: Does this opportunity align
with company strategy and product vision?
- Feasibility: Can we realistically address this?
(Technical feasibility, resource availability, time to impact)
Presenting Opportunity
Sizing
- Be transparent about assumptions and confidence levels
- Show the math: "Based on support ticket volume, approximately 2,000
users per month encounter this issue. Interview data suggests 60% of
them consider it a significant blocker."
- Use ranges rather than false precision: "This affects 1,500-2,500
users monthly" not "This affects 2,137 users monthly"
- Compare opportunities against each other to create a relative
ranking, not just absolute scores
Use clear headers and structured formatting. Each finding should
stand on its own — a reader should be able to read any single finding
and understand it without reading the rest.
Tips
- Let the data speak. Do not force findings into a predetermined
narrative.
- Distinguish between what users say and what they do. Behavioral data
is stronger than stated preferences.
- Quotes are powerful evidence. Include them generously, with
attribution to participant type (not name).
- Be explicit about confidence levels. A finding from 2 interviews is
a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
- Contradictions in the data are interesting, not inconvenient. They
often reveal distinct user segments.
- Recommendations should be specific enough to act on. "Improve
onboarding" is not actionable. "Add a progress indicator to the setup
flow" is.
- Resist the temptation to synthesize too many themes. 5-8 strong
findings are better than 20 weak ones.