vs-research-ideate

name	vs-research-ideate
description	Generate high-entropy research (자료조사) and ideas (아이디어) using Verbalized Sampling to avoid mode collapse and maximize creativity and novelty.

This skill guides the creation of distinctive, non-generic research (자료조사) and ideas (아이디어) by explicitly mitigating "Mode Collapse"—the tendency to produce obvious, first-page-of-Google results and predictable "AI-slop" ideas. It uses Verbalized Sampling (VS) logic to unlock LLM creativity and deliver high-entropy, memorable research angles and ideation.

Use when: The user asks for research, literature review, market/competitor analysis, background gathering, or ideation, brainstorming, concept generation, feature ideas, or creative solutions.

---

Phase 0: Context Discovery (MANDATORY)

BEFORE any research or ideation, you MUST gather deep context from the user. Use the AskUserQuestion tool (or direct questions in dialogue) to probe the following dimensions:

Discovery Dimensions

1. Purpose: Why is this research or ideation needed? (e.g., decision-making, report, inspiration, validation, problem-solving)
2. Scope & Constraints: What's in bounds? Time, budget, geography, domain? What must be excluded?
3. Existing Knowledge: What does the user already know or assume? What have they already read or tried?
4. Reference Points / Anti-References: What angles or sources do they want to emulate? What do they explicitly want to avoid? (e.g., "not the usual McKinsey-style framing")
5. Audience: Who will consume this research or these ideas? What's their level of expertise and what would surprise or help them?

Context Signals

• Analyze the prompt for implicit scope (industry, product, academic vs commercial, depth of evidence required).
• Infer anti-patterns from domain (e.g., tech: avoid "top 10 tools" generic lists; strategy: avoid generic SWOT).
• Ask follow-up questions if the request is vague—surface the real question or problem behind the ask.

CRITICAL: Do not proceed to Phase 1 until you have sufficient context. A vague prompt requires MORE questions, not assumptions.

---

Phase 1: Identify the Mode (The Generic Baseline)

• For research: Verbalize the most predictable, high-probability (P ≈ 0.95) research approach and sources for this request. Examples of "research mode collapse":
  • First-page Google results and Wikipedia
  • Generic industry reports and "state of X" articles
  • Obvious keywords and mainstream frameworks (e.g., Porter's Five Forces without twist)
  • Single-domain, single-perspective synthesis
• For ideation: Verbalize the most predictable ideas—the first three an average person (or typical AI) would suggest. Examples:
  • "Add a dashboard," "improve UX," "use AI"
  • Incremental tweaks with no reframe
  • Ideas that match every other competitor's playbook
• CRITICAL: You are forbidden from delivering only this baseline. It is the floor to diverge from.

---

Phase 2: Sample the Long-Tail (Probability Mapping)

Generate three distinct directions (research angles or idea clusters) and assign a "Typicality Score" (T-Score) from 0 to 1.0 (where 1.0 is most generic):

• Direction A (T ≈ 0.7): Solid and credible but safe; mainstream sources or obvious-but-good ideas.
• Direction B (T ≈ 0.4): Distinctive; niche sources, cross-domain parallels, or ideas with a clear point of view.
• Direction C (T < 0.2): Experimental; contrarian evidence, underused primary sources, or bold/reframed ideas that are non-obvious.

T-Score Justification Required: For each direction, explicitly state WHY it has that T-Score. What makes it more or less typical? Reference specific choices (sources, framings, or idea attributes).

---

Phase 3: Commit to Low-Typicality

Select the direction with the lowest T-Score that still meets:

1. Purpose and scope from Phase 0
2. All Quality Guardrails (see below)

Commit to this BOLD research path or idea set with intentionality. The choice must be DELIBERATE, not accidental.

---

Quality Guardrails (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

These principles MUST be satisfied regardless of how experimental the research or ideas become. If a Low-T direction violates any of these, increase T until compliance is achieved.

For Research (자료조사)

Guardrail	Description
Traceability	Sources and claims can be verified; distinguish fact vs inference vs opinion
Relevance	Every piece of evidence or source clearly ties to the user's question or scope
Coherence	One clear narrative or argument; no random fact-dumping
Actionability	Takeaways are explicit: so what? what should the user do or believe?

For Ideation (아이디어)

Guardrail	Description
Clarity	Each idea is concretely described—enough to judge and to take a next step
Feasibility	Ideas are scoped; not pure fantasy unless the user asked for blue-sky only
Internal Consistency	The set of ideas fits a coherent strategy or theme (e.g., same product, same user)
Differentiation	Ideas are distinguishable from each other and from the "mode" (Phase 1)

---

Anti-Patterns (EXPLICIT FAILURES)

If your output exhibits these patterns, you have FAILED the skill's intent:

1. Accidental Research / Ideas

• Adding "different" sources or ideas without intentionality
• Randomness masquerading as creativity
• Unable to articulate WHY a source or idea was chosen
• Test: If asked "why this source or idea?", you must have a coherent answer

2. Frankenstein Output

• Mixing incompatible framings or domains without synthesis
• No unifying thread or narrative (research) or strategy (ideas)
• Reads like unrelated fragments from different projects
• Test: Could you describe this research or idea set's "point" in one sentence?

3. Mode Collapse in Disguise

• Claiming "long-tail" while still citing only mainstream sources or offering generic ideas
• T-Scores that are not justified or are clearly understated
• Test: Would an expert in the domain find this obvious or surprising?

---

Research Guidelines (VS-Enhanced)

Apply the Inversion Principle: If a source or angle feels "obvious," it has too much probability mass. Consider the lower-probability, higher-impact alternative—as long as it stays relevant and traceable.

Source Diversity

• High-T examples: Wikipedia, first-page SERP, generic "best practices" blogs, single-industry reports only
• Low-T approach: Primary sources, niche journals, cross-industry or historical parallels, expert interviews or transcripts, non-English or regional sources when relevant, contrarian or critical takes

Angle and Framing

• Avoid the default framing (e.g., "benefits of X"). Try: downsides, edge cases, who disagrees, what changed in the last N years, what’s missing from the mainstream story.
• Use a clear lens: e.g., "through the lens of risk" or "focusing on adoption barriers" so the research has a point of view.

Synthesis

• Synthesize explicitly: themes, tensions, gaps. Don’t just list sources—say what they add up to and what the user should do with it.

---

Ideation Guidelines (VS-Enhanced)

• Inversion: If the obvious idea is "add feature X," consider "remove X," "replace X with Y," or "make X optional for a segment."
• Combination: Combine constraints or domains (e.g., "what if we applied X from industry A to our product in industry B?").
• Constraint removal: Temporarily ignore one key constraint (cost, tech, time) to unlock ideas, then map back to feasibility.
• Anti-benchmark: Explicitly avoid ideas that "everyone else" is already doing; label and skip the mode, then push further.

---

Structural Frameworks (Context-Dependent)

For Research Output

When the goal is decision or recommendation, structure the deliverable as:

Stage	Goal	Application
Question	State the exact question or decision being informed	One sentence; no ambiguity
Evidence	Present findings by theme or source type, with T-Score awareness	Prefer low-T sources; mark confidence and gaps
Gaps & Caveats	What’s missing, conflicting, or uncertain	Builds trust and clarifies "so what"
Implications & Options	What the user should do or believe; 2–3 concrete options if relevant	Actionable next steps

For Ideation Output

When the goal is concept or feature generation, structure as:

Stage	Goal	Application
Problem / Opportunity	Reframe the brief in one line	Ensures ideas solve the right problem
Idea Set	3–5 distinct ideas with T-Score and brief rationale	Lowest T that still passes guardrails
Selection Criteria	How to choose (e.g., impact vs effort, strategic fit)	Makes the set usable for the user
Next Steps	One concrete next step per idea (e.g., "validate with one customer")	Moves from idea to action

---

Implementation Standards

• Output quality: Research must be citable and synthesised; ideas must be specific and scoped.
• Complexity–Typicality balance: As you go lower-T, add clarity and structure so the output remains usable.
• No refusal on novelty: Do not simplify or fall back to generic output for brevity. The user invoked this skill for high-entropy research and ideas.

---

Execution Process Summary

[Phase 0] Context Discovery
    ↓ (questions – gather purpose, scope, anti-refs, audience)
[Phase 1] Identify the Mode
    ↓ (verbalize the generic baseline – research or ideas)
[Phase 2] Sample the Long-Tail
    ↓ (three directions with justified T-Scores)
[Phase 3] Commit to Low-Typicality
    ↓ (select lowest T that passes Guardrails)
[Phase 4] Execute Output
    ↓ (research: sources + synthesis + implications; ideas: set + criteria + next steps)
[Phase 5] Surprise Check
    ↓ (would an expert find this obvious? if yes, refine)

---

Final Validation

Before delivering, ask yourself:

1. Intentionality: Can I justify every major source or idea choice?
2. Coherence: Does the research have one clear narrative? Do the ideas form a coherent set?
3. Guardrails: Are traceability, relevance, clarity, and feasibility preserved?
4. Surprise: Would this stand out compared to generic research or generic ideation?

REMEMBER: The goal is to maximize "Surprise Score" and usefulness while maintaining rigor and clarity. Break the mold—deliberately—in 자료조사 and 아이디어.