ccf-idea-optimizer

name	ccf-idea-optimizer
description	Turn rough CCF research directions into concrete problem, gap, insight, method, novelty, and evidence plans. Use for idea optimization, fuzzy idea concretization, research direction shaping, early direction exploration, salvage routes, 优化idea, 具象化idea, 研究思路优化, 找方向, 方向探索. Do not rank or score multiple ideas as the main output.
metadata	{"ccf_skill_controls":{"handoff_question_mode":"partial","respect_session_denylists":true,"protect_idea_scope_in_writing":true,"private_material_safety":"moderate","shared_controls":"../ccf-common/references/"}}

CCF Idea Optimizer

Invocation Controls

CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf_skill_controls.handoff_question_mode and ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md. Use ../ccf-common/references/routing.md to keep idea optimization separate from idea scoring, manuscript writing, paper review, and rebuttal tasks.

Load ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md before deciding exploratory, quick, or standard mode. Use exploratory mode for rough seeds, repeated direction search, "找方向", "还有没有可做路线", or when the user wants possibility before judgment. Use quick mode for a short idea repair or one local direction note. Use standard mode for mature idea concretization, novelty grounding, or a plan that will feed writing, reviewing, literature search, or experiment design.

If the user says not to use, disable, skip, or avoid a sibling skill, do not invoke or simulate that skill for the rest of the conversation. Use this skill's local fallback instead: compact risk scan, action queue, or next-step note without cross-skill execution.

Do not invent literature, results, baselines, experiments, reviewer reactions, or novelty evidence. Mark unsearched novelty and missing evidence as uncertainty.

Treat rough ideas, unpublished method details, draft abstracts, and experiment plans as private user data. Load ../ccf-common/references/privacy-and-evidence.md before browsing, using private text in a query, or making evidence/provenance claims.

Core Rule

Optimize the research idea before optimizing the writing. Do not inflate novelty, invent related work, invent results, or turn weak ideas into confident claims. Make the idea more CCF-A-ready by sharpening the problem, mechanism, contribution, evidence package, and reviewer-facing risk register. For fuzzy ideas, generate diverse but internally consistent candidate concretizations; prefer timely, elegant, non-stale directions and clearly mark novelty uncertainty until searched. In exploratory mode, do not kill a seed direction just because it is currently weak or crowded: produce at least one plausible rescue route, narrower problem, venue switch, benchmark/evidence route, or "minimum viable research question" before recommending a pivot. Follow the user's requested output shape: idea card, alternatives, roadmap, questions, table, Chinese explanation, or handoff-ready brief.

Mandatory Checklist

In standard mode, complete this checklist before final output. In quick mode, run the local subset only and return a compact status.

1. Target venue, venue family, field, and idea stage are explicit or marked unknown.
2. The raw idea is normalized into problem, gap, root challenge, insight, method, evidence, and limitation.
3. Missing inputs that affect confidence are named: related work, datasets, code, compute, timeline, collaborators, or domain constraints.
4. Novelty is treated as uncertain until grounded against closest known work or a current literature search.
5. The method mechanism is explained, not only named.
6. Innovation type is classified: problem, setting, method, data/benchmark, theory, system, empirical finding, evaluation, or synthesis.
7. The experiment plan tests the central claim and includes baselines, ablations, robustness, and failure analysis as needed by the venue.
8. Reviewer risks are labeled as writing-fixable, design-fixable, evidence-fixable, requires-new-result, venue-mismatch, or likely-pivot.
9. Diverse variants are checked for internal contradictions, mutually incompatible assumptions, and theme drift.
10. Early-stage outputs separate current weakness from development potential; uncertainty is labeled as needs-search, needs-mechanism, or needs-evidence, not as rejection.
11. Any optional module transition to ccf-literature-monitor, ccf-literature-searcher, ccf-idea-reviewer, ccf-experiment-designer, or ccf-paper-writer follows the CCFA handoff mode; if denied or disabled, output a local risk scan or next-step note only.

Load references/idea-intake.md when inputs are incomplete or several idea drafts must be normalized.

Workflow

1. Identify the target venue, track, field, idea maturity, user's decision goal, constraints, and available evidence. If no venue is named, assume a generic CCF-A target and label the assumption.
2. Map the target to a CCF-A family. Use ../ccf-common/references/ccf-a-venue-map.md for shared venue-family routing; then load references/venue-idea-adapters.md for idea-stage priorities.
3. Ground novelty and timeliness. If the user asks for current prior art, latest trends, frontiers, non-stale ideas, recent similar papers, competitor tracking, or venue-specific policy, follow CCFA handoff mode before using ccf-literature-monitor for recent-paper/competitor signals or ccf-literature-searcher for deep related-work search. If searching directly, browse primary sources: official venue pages, papers, proceedings, arXiv pages, project pages, and credible scholar sources. Mark unsearched novelty as uncertain. Treat close prior work as a differentiation problem first; treat it as a dead end only when the same problem, mechanism, evidence path, and venue claim are already covered.
4. Normalize the raw idea. Load references/idea-intake.md and produce an idea card with task, audience, gap, root challenge, insight, method, expected evidence, and constraints.
5. For fuzzy or underdetermined ideas, load references/frontier-ideation.md and produce 3-5 candidate concretizations with high diversity across problem angle, mechanism, evidence type, and venue fit. Randomness is allowed in exploration, but final candidates must be coherent and non-conflicting.
6. Sharpen the problem and method. Load references/problem-method-blueprint.md; convert vague motivation into a decision-relevant problem and convert method names into mechanisms, assumptions, failure modes, and alternatives.
7. Shape the innovation. Decide the strongest honest contribution type and remove unsupported or diluted claims.
8. Design the minimum convincing evidence package. Load references/experiment-design.md; specify datasets, baselines, ablations, metrics, stress tests, efficiency, user study, proof, or systems evaluation as required by the venue family. Follow CCFA handoff mode before using ccf-experiment-designer for a full experiment plan.
9. Run an internal development pass. In exploratory mode, use a coach-like viability scan: what can be saved, what must be narrowed, what evidence would decide, and what the next interaction should ask. Follow the CCFA handoff mode before using ccf-idea-reviewer as an optional scoring module; use it only when the user explicitly wants scoring, ranking, investment triage, or strict novelty judgment. If it is denied or disabled, perform a compact multi-expert risk scan focused only on problem and method.
10. Produce an optimized idea plan, rescue/pivot options, and a writing-readiness note. Follow the CCFA handoff mode before offering the viable plan to ccf-paper-writer; if writing is denied or not confirmed, stop at the idea plan.

Adaptive Output Contracts

Return the requested artifact first. If the user asks for options, give options. If they ask for a concise idea card, do not force a full review-style report. Use the following defaults when the user asks for a standard idea-optimization output.

For one idea, return:

Target venue and assumptions:
Mode and development stance:
Raw idea diagnosis:
Optimized idea card:
Candidate concretizations:
Problem statement:
Core insight:
Method blueprint:
Innovation claims:
Experiment plan:
Closest-work / novelty unknowns:
Reviewer-risk register:
Rescue routes and suggested pivots:
Optional next-module decision:
Checklist status:

For multiple idea drafts, return:

Venue lens:
Normalized idea table:
Best development candidate:
Why it is the best current route:
Idea-specific upgrades:
Risks by idea:
Recommended next iteration:

Reference Files

Load only what is needed:

• references/idea-intake.md: Use for incomplete, messy, or multi-candidate idea drafts.
• references/frontier-ideation.md: Use for fuzzy idea concretization, high-diversity exploration, non-stale direction checks, and coherence filters.
• references/problem-method-blueprint.md: Use when sharpening the problem, insight, mechanism, contribution type, and failure modes.
• references/venue-idea-adapters.md: Use after mapping a target to a CCF-A family.
• references/experiment-design.md: Use when designing baselines, ablations, evidence packages, and acceptance-oriented experiments.
• references/research-taste.md: Use when the user asks what makes research good, elegant, timely, or likely to survive top-conference review.
• references/source-notes.md: Use when provenance, source basis, or current-policy checks matter.

If the user's request is only to score an idea without optimizing it, follow the CCFA handoff mode before switching to ccf-idea-reviewer unless the user explicitly named it. If the user's request is mainly to monitor recent papers or competitors, route to ccf-literature-monitor; if it is mainly to search related literature deeply, route to ccf-literature-searcher. If the user already has a manuscript draft, follow the CCFA handoff mode before switching to ccf-paper-writer or ccf-paper-reviewer; if not confirmed, provide only a brief scope note.