GFLR - Gap-Filling Reasoning

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Step 1: Identify the Intended Complete Set

SUBJECT: [what we're examining for gaps]
COMPLETE SET DEFINITION: [what "complete" looks like for this context]
SOURCE OF COMPLETENESS STANDARD:
  [standard | best practice | explicit specification | logical necessity | domain convention]
CONFIDENCE IN STANDARD: [high | medium | low]

You cannot find gaps without a reference for what “complete” means. If no standard exists, construct one and state your assumptions.

Step 2: Enumerate What’s Present

PRESENT ELEMENTS:
  1. [element] — STATUS: [complete | partial | placeholder]
  2. [element] — STATUS: [complete | partial | placeholder]
  3. [element] — STATUS: [complete | partial | placeholder]
  ...

List everything that currently exists. Be exhaustive — gaps become visible only when the present set is fully enumerated.

Step 3: Identify What’s Absent

ABSENT ELEMENTS:
  1. [missing element]
     EXPECTED BECAUSE: [why the completeness standard includes this]
     CATEGORY: [core | supporting | peripheral]
  2. [missing element]
     EXPECTED BECAUSE: [reason]
     CATEGORY: [core | supporting | peripheral]
  ...

Core elements are essential for function. Supporting elements improve quality. Peripheral elements are nice-to-have.

Step 4: Assess Whether Absences Are Intentional

For each absence:

GAP ASSESSMENT: [missing element]
  INTENTIONAL: [yes | no | unclear]
  REASONING:
    IF INTENTIONAL: [why it was likely excluded — scope, cost, priority]
    IF OVERSIGHT: [why it was likely missed — blind spot, assumption, rush]
    IF UNCLEAR: [what information would determine intent]

Intentional gaps are often defensible. Oversights are where the real problems hide. Don’t treat every gap as a problem — some are legitimate design choices.

Step 5: Prioritize Gaps by Impact

GAP PRIORITY RANKING:
  1. [gap] — IMPACT: [what breaks or degrades without this]
     SEVERITY: [critical | significant | moderate | minor]
     URGENCY: [immediate | soon | eventual | optional]
  2. [gap] — IMPACT: [consequence]
     SEVERITY: [level]
     URGENCY: [level]
  ...

Prioritize by consequence, not by ease of filling. The hardest gap to fill is often the most important one.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
  1. FILL: [gap]
     HOW: [specific approach to closing this gap]
     EFFORT: [low | medium | high]
     VALUE: [what completing this adds]
     PRIORITY: [must-do | should-do | could-do]
  2. FILL: [gap]
     HOW: [approach]
     EFFORT: [level]
     VALUE: [benefit]
     PRIORITY: [level]

ACCEPTABLE GAPS (intentionally unfilled):
  1. [gap] — REASON TO LEAVE: [why filling this isn't worth it]

Output Summary

GAP ANALYSIS
============
SUBJECT: [what was analyzed]
COMPLETENESS: [X of Y elements present — percentage]
CRITICAL GAPS: [count and list]
SIGNIFICANT GAPS: [count and list]
TOP PRIORITY: [the single most important gap to fill]
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: [ordered list]
INTENTIONAL GAPS: [gaps that are acceptable as-is]

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
No completeness standard	Gaps found without reference to what “complete” means	Define the standard first
Everything is a gap	Huge list with no prioritization	Rank by impact, accept some gaps as intentional
Assuming all gaps are oversights	No assessment of intentionality	Check whether each absence was a deliberate choice
Present-set is incomplete	Gaps identified but present elements not fully listed	Enumerate present elements exhaustively first
Impact not assessed	Gaps listed without consequence analysis	Every gap must have an impact statement

Integration

Use with: /cmpr to verify completeness claims more formally
Use with: /sysk to find missing components in a system
Use with: /rlsk to identify unmet needs in relationships
Use from: /evaluate when assessing whether work is complete
Differs from /cmpr: gflr focuses on what’s missing and why; cmpr assesses whether something meets completeness criteria

gflr - Gap-Filling Reasoning