| name | research-scope |
| description | Normalize a research topic and user materials into a bounded, evidence-aware scope brief before literature search or ideation. Use when a researcher needs to turn an informal topic into clear questions, exclusions, success criteria, and an upload inventory. |
| tools | ["read_file","write_file","list_files","finish_task"] |
| strict_tools | true |
| model_tier | standard |
| temperature | 0.2 |
| allowed_read_prefixes | ["user_inputs/research-scope/","user_seeds/","literature/","ideation/","_runtime/skill_sessions/"] |
| allowed_write_prefixes | ["ideation/"] |
| outputs_expected | {"scope_brief":"ideation/skill_scope_brief.md","scope_record":"ideation/skill_scope_brief.json"} |
| interaction | {"mode":"guided","language":"zh-CN","summary":"将研究主题和用户材料收敛为可检索、可证伪且边界明确的研究范围；不会把猜测写成已证实结论。","request_required":true,"request_prompt":"请说明目标论文或项目类型、希望解决的问题、目标读者、语言和任何不可触碰的约束。","example_request":"将“研究 LLM agent 的长期表现”收敛为一份英文实证论文的研究范围，明确数据、因果边界和不做的方向。","required_inputs":[{"id":"topic_brief","label":"主题与现有材料","description":"包含至少一个问题描述、已有观察/方法线索、目标读者或场景；可附链接摘要但不要放凭据。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":80,"example":"user_inputs/research-scope/brief.md"}],"optional_inputs":[{"id":"constraints","label":"约束或种子假设","description":"可选；预算、数据许可、时间范围、必须保留/排除的立场或已有假设。","paths":"[Truncated]","extensions":"[Truncated]","min_bytes":20,"example":"user_inputs/research-scope/constraints.md"}],"outputs":[{"id":"scope_brief","label":"研究范围简报","path":"ideation/skill_scope_brief.md","description":"面向研究者的研究问题、边界、证据需求、输入清单与下一步建议。"},{"id":"scope_record","label":"结构化范围记录","path":"ideation/skill_scope_brief.json","description":"供检索、idea 和写作 Skills 复用的目标、约束、术语和未决问题。"}]} |
Research Scope
Read the supplied brief before inferring any scope. Produce both declared outputs. Separate observed, proposed, and unknown statements. The brief must contain: primary and secondary questions, unit of analysis, target setting, in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries, available versus required evidence, likely search concepts, evaluation success criteria, ethical/licensing constraints, and unresolved decisions.
Do not invent data access, causal identification, literature consensus, or results. When an ambiguity changes the research design materially, record it as a decision for the user rather than silently selecting one.
