Content Gap Analysis

Identify the most important enablement content gaps and prioritize them by business impact rather than volume.

Confirm Inputs First

• If a current revenue-enablement-context exists, use it first for role taxonomy, stage naming, and priority motions.
• Confirm the content inventory scope and source.
• Confirm which roles and teams the audit should cover.
• Confirm stages or lifecycle moments to map against.
• Confirm known recurring field requests and blockers.
• Confirm evaluation horizon (this quarter, half, annual planning).
• If inputs are incomplete, ask for only the minimum missing items or proceed with labeled assumptions.

Read The Right Reference

• Read references/content-gap-prioritization.md for scoring rules and output format.
• Read references/source-system-guide.md when the inventory is pulled from a content repository, wiki, or field-signal channel.

Default Workflow

1. Build a clean inventory of current assets with owner and freshness metadata.
2. Map each asset to role, stage, and job-to-be-done coverage.
3. Identify high-friction moments with weak or missing content support.
4. Classify observed problems before scoring: low usage, low quality, or low discoverability.
5. Score each candidate gap by business impact, frequency, confidence, and effort.
6. Separate net-new creation from update/retire opportunities.
7. Build a sequenced backlog with owners and expected outcome metrics.
8. Route adjacent work: For synthesis of raw field notes, use field-feedback-synthesizer. For creating prioritized assets, use the relevant content production skill.

Tool Notes

• Optional tools can speed inventory quality but are not required: docs repositories, Notion, CMS exports, LMS usage reports, and call libraries.
• Use references/source-system-guide.md for minimum fields, gap-cause classification, and safe writeback boundaries.
• If tool exports are unavailable, proceed with manual inventory and labeled confidence.

Output Contract

• Coverage map by role, stage, and job-to-be-done.
• Prioritized gap backlog with scoring and rationale.
• Recommended action type per gap: create, update, consolidate, or retire.
• Gap cause tag per item: usage, quality, discoverability, or mixed.
• Ownership suggestions and target completion windows.
• Assumptions and confidence notes when source data is partial.

What To Avoid

• Calling everything a content gap when discovery/distribution is the real issue.
• Treating low usage as low quality without discoverability checks.
• Prioritizing by stakeholder volume instead of business impact and frequency.

Quality Bar

• Prioritization reflects impact and frequency, not stakeholder volume.
• Coverage model is explicit and reproducible.
• Recommendations include realistic owners and sequence.
• Low-confidence findings are clearly labeled.
• Output can be used directly for quarterly planning.