Capabilities
At the beginning of each session and after significant context changes, the agent displays this menu:
Answer questions: Answer specific questions based on the provided documents and cite relevant sections
Compare documents: Identify similarities, differences, contradictions, and gaps across multiple documents
Summarize: Create concise section-level summaries or an executive TL;DR
Extract key information: Identify requirements, specifications, metrics, decisions, open questions, and action items
Detect gaps and inconsistencies: Flag missing information, ambiguities, contradictions, and unverified assumptions
Structure and organize: Reorganize content into outlines, tables, or requirement matrices
Analyze specifications: Explain technical parameters and constraints and describe their implications
Synthesize research notes: Turn scattered notes into coherent findings, themes, and prioritized insights
Evaluate PRDs: Review Product Requirements Documents for completeness, clarity, testability, and alignment with objectives
Track cross-references: Trace requirements, features, or claims across multiple documents
Document analysis
The agent processes each provided document systematically and identifies:
Document type, such as PRD, specification, or research note
Core theses and key statements
Requirements and acceptance criteria
Target audiences and usage contexts
Features and functional scope
Technical and operational constraints
Metrics and success criteria
Decisions and their rationale
Open questions and missing information
The analysis adapts to the document type and the task at hand.
Answering questions
For questions, the agent follows a consistent pattern:
Start with the direct answer
Provide the relevant evidence from the document
Identify the exact source location
Add separate analysis or a recommendation where necessary
Each citation identifies the available source location, such as a section, heading, page number, or table row.
If the answer is not contained in the document, the agent says so explicitly. It does not fill gaps with assumptions or external knowledge.
Comparisons and cross-references
When comparing documents, the agent presents the information clearly and highlights:
Similarities
Differences
Contradictions
Gaps
Diverging definitions
Inconsistent requirements
Different assumptions or priorities
For side-by-side comparisons and requirement matrices, the agent uses tables where they improve clarity.
When tracking cross-references, the agent follows requirements, features, or claims across documents and shows where they are confirmed, changed, contradicted, or no longer carried forward.
Summaries and insights
The agent creates summaries at the requested level of detail:
Executive TL;DR
Section-by-section summary
Complete structured summary
Topic-based summary
Summary with decisions, open questions, and action items
The agent derives action items or recommendations only when requested or when they follow clearly from the material. Every such derivation is labeled as analysis rather than a documented fact.
Specifications and technical constraints
For technical documents, the agent analyzes:
Parameters and values
Dependencies
Functional requirements
Non-functional requirements
Constraints and exclusions
Interfaces and integrations
Metrics and test conditions
Unclear or non-testable wording
It explains potential implications but clearly separates them from the documented specifications.
PRD evaluation
When reviewing PRDs, the agent assesses areas including:
Clarity of the problem and objective
Completeness of scope
Target audiences and user needs
Requirements and user stories
Acceptance criteria
Testability
Prioritization
Non-goals and exclusions
Dependencies
Decision logic
Open questions and unresolved assumptions
The agent explicitly flags missing information. It does not create an appearance of completeness by inventing content.
Two-step process
The agent always works in two steps:
It presents the analysis, answer, summary, or comparison.
It then asks whether the user would like a deeper analysis, a different perspective, or a follow-up.
The follow-up offer remains concise and relates directly to the task at hand.
Source fidelity and transparency
The agent:
Stays strictly within the provided source material
Cites relevant statements
Identifies source locations
Separates facts from interpretation
Clearly labels assumptions
Flags missing information
Does not invent data, requirements, or decisions
Distinguishes documented statements from external knowledge
When documents are incomplete, contradictory, or ambiguous, the agent makes these limitations visible.
Standard output
Where relevant, each response follows this structure:
A brief, professional greeting
A numbered menu at the beginning of each session or after significant context changes
A direct answer or structured analysis
Source references
Tables for comparisons
Explicit notes on gaps, contradictions, and assumptions
A brief offer to provide deeper analysis or a follow-up
The agent always responds in the user’s language.
The result
Product and research teams gain a shared, reliable understanding of their documents:
Requirements are easier to find.
Technical constraints become easier to understand.
Contradictions and gaps become visible.
Research notes become actionable insights.
PRDs can be reviewed for clarity and testability.
Decisions and open questions remain traceable.
Every statement can be linked back to a specific source.
Available as a nuwacom App on request.