| name | generate-theories |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate theories", "theorize about", "what theories explain", "form scientific theories", "literature-driven theories", "hypothesize", "form hypotheses", "generate hypotheses", "what hypotheses explain", "run the theorizer", or wants AI-generated, literature-grounded scientific theories or hypotheses about a research question. |
| metadata | {"internal":true} |
| allowed-tools | Bash(asta auth login) Bash(asta auth status) Bash(asta generate-theories *) Bash(asta artifacts *) Bash(asta documents *) Bash(open *) |
Generate Theories
Uses the Theorizer agent (via asta-gateway) to find papers, extract evidence, write theories, and score novelty. Auth: asta auth login.
The CLI is generated from the agent card — every subcommand, flag, and default. Discover the surface yourself:
asta generate-theories --help — list subcommands.asta generate-theories card — full agent card.asta generate-theories describe <skill-id> — input schema for one skill.
This skill is in two halves. The first describes what Theorizer is — its three composable stages, the bundled end-to-end version, and the standalone subcommands. The second describes how to handle a generate-theories request end-to-end — choosing a mode, shaping the question, dispatching, checkpoints, handoff, and error handling.
What this skill is good for
- Generating literature-grounded scientific theories about causal questions ("how does X affect Y, via what mechanism, in what domain").
- Finding evidence in published papers to support or contradict a hypothesis.
- Scoring theory novelty against existing literature.
- Surveying what's known and unknown in a research area through extracted variables and findings.
The pipeline
Theorizer's literature-driven theory generation is three composable stages:
literature-theory-generation = find-and-extract → form-theory → evaluate-novelty
find-and-extract — searches papers for the research question and pulls theory-relevant findings (entities, variables, results) from each into a structured table via an extraction schema. Outputs: paper list + extraction findings. No theories yet.form-theory — writes a small set of theories from extraction results. Each theory is a few short laws (e.g. "X causes Y") with supporting and conflicting paper evidence attached. Accepts either a prior run's task_id or user-supplied extraction results.evaluate-novelty — scores each theory's statements against the retrieved literature, marking each claim as already established, derivable from known work, or genuinely new. Accepts either a prior run's task_id or user-supplied theories.
literature-theory-generation is the bundled end-to-end version that runs all three back-to-back without pause. Convenient when the user wants results in one shot; less useful when the user wants to inspect or steer between stages.
Two more standalone subcommands round out the surface:
build-extraction-schema — normalizes the research question, drafts a paper search query, and generates the extraction schema that find-and-extract uses. Useful when the user wants to inspect or curate the schema before running the pipeline; pass the produced schema via the extraction_schema parameter on find-and-extract or literature-theory-generation.resume-extraction — add more papers to a prior run and extract findings from them. Useful after failed paper downloads, or to grow the evidence base of a prior run without starting over.
How to run it
The sections below describe the choreography for handling a generate-theories request — what to ask, what to surface, and when.
Two modes: automatic vs piecemeal
Because the pipeline is composable, the user has a choice: let it run straight through, or step through stage by stage.
- Automatic — single
literature-theory-generation call. Submit, wait, render results. Fastest path; user can't steer mid-run.
- Piecemeal — call the three stages separately. After each stage, show the user what came out and ask whether to continue, stop, or edit. Slower but steerable; user can prune papers, refine the query, or stop after they have what they need.
On the user's first generate-theories request in a session, after shaping the question but before submitting, ask which mode they want via AskUserQuestion with the two options as choices. Briefly explain the trade-off in each option's description.
After they answer, remember the choice for the rest of the session. If they later signal they want the other mode ("actually, just run it" / "wait, let me see the papers first"), respect that without re-confirming.
Exception: if the user's original phrasing already commits ("just run it," "use defaults," "I'll review papers before extraction"), skip the question and honor the implied choice.
Between stages
When running piecemeal, after each stage completes, surface a clear summary in chat oriented to the decision the user is about to make, then offer three options:
| Option | What happens |
|---|
| Continue | Run the next stage on this run's output |
| Stop | End here. Render whatever results exist via the Asta Artifacts handoff |
| Edit | Modify before continuing (see below) |
The summary should be tight and decision-oriented — not a dump of everything.
After find-and-extract:
- Show the paper list (titles + 1-line summary of what was extracted from each).
- Edit means: the user may want to add or remove specific papers, edit the extraction schema used to gather evidence, or restart with a refined query.
After form-theory:
- Show the theories: name + 2-3 sentence core idea + supporting/contradicting paper counts.
- Edit means: re-run
form-theory with a different generation_objective (accuracy-focused vs novelty-focused) or against a subset of the extractions.
After evaluate-novelty:
- This is the terminal stage — there is no "continue."
- Show per-theory novelty labels in plain English.
- Edit means: re-run novelty against a refined theory subset, or branch into
find-literature to challenge specific claims.
If the user picks Stop at any stage, hand off to Asta Artifacts as usual to export and index whatever was produced. Partial extractions and theories are valid artifacts.
Shape the question
This applies only when the next call generates or forms theories — specifically literature-theory-generation (full pipeline) or form-theory (standalone or continuation). Do NOT shape the query when the next call triggers find-and-extract, evaluate-novelty, or resume-extraction.
A good Theorizer theory question covers four dimensions, and the agent works dramatically better when they're explicit:
- Intervention — the independent variable being varied (e.g., source citations, response latency, anthropomorphic phrasing).
- Outcomes — concrete dependent variables (e.g., trust, retention, task completion).
- Mediating mechanism (optional) — the hypothesized driver of the effect (e.g., perceived transparency, cognitive load, anchoring). Theorizer can run without one; include it only when the user supplies it.
- Scope — the domain the theory should apply to (e.g., consumer chatbots, enterprise search, coding agents).
Three well-formed examples (the second one includes an optional mechanism):
- Build a theory of how spaced retrieval practice affects long-term retention in undergraduate STEM courses.
- Build a theory of how intermittent fasting affects insulin sensitivity, via autophagy upregulation, in adults with metabolic syndrome.
- Build a theory of how prescribed burns affect grassland biodiversity in temperate North American prairies.
A vague question that fires through the full pipeline can burn 15–25 minutes and several dollars producing theories that don't answer what the user actually meant. Shaping costs ~30 seconds and protects that investment.
Within a session, don't re-shape on subsequent runs unless the user changes their question substantively. Repeating the dance is friction.
How to handle the user's question — audit, then route:
Don't guess the required dimensions (Intervention, Outcome, Scope) on the user's behalf. Silently picking one commits the whole run to an angle the user never chose, and Theorizer will dutifully narrow further. Inferred dimensions consistently produce off-target theories.
Audit first: Determine whether the user's question contains the three required dimensions (Intervention, Outcome, Scope). Each is either present, missing, or ambiguous. Note whether a mechanism is also present, but its absence is not a gap.
Then route:
-
Proceed silently if all three required dimensions are present. Don't announce the audit result, don't tell the user the question is "well-formed," don't name the dimensions — move directly to the next dispatch step. Add the "Build a theory of how..." framing yourself.
-
Poll for what's missing if any required dimension is missing or ambiguous. In a single message, ask the user about every required gap. Remember that the user does not know about the dimensions. Then reformulate the query as a "Build a theory of how..." statement using their answers and show it for confirmation before submitting.
Escape hatch: End the poll with a one-line note that the user can say "skip that," "use what I gave you," or "let Theorizer figure it out" to skip shaping and submit the question as given. Some advanced users prefer under-specifying deliberately. Respect that signal. The user can also opt out in their original message (before any poll happens); if so, skip the poll entirely and submit as given.
-
Refuse if the question isn't a causal hypothesis testable against scientific literature (e.g., "what should I name my startup," "summarize this paper"). State plainly that Theorizer's domain is causal scientific theories grounded in published evidence, and offer to reframe the question into that form or hand off to another skill.
Route 2 (Poll for what's missing):
**Your question:** What makes people trust AI?
I need a few details to shape this into a good theory question:
- **Intervention** — what variable do you want to vary? (e.g., source citations, response latency, anthropomorphic phrasing)
- **Scope** — what domain should the theory apply to? (e.g., consumer chatbots, medical AI, search assistants)
Or I can send your query verbatim, and Theorizer will work with what you've given me. It can often infer the rest from the literature.
After they answer, reformulate and confirm:
**Reshaped:**
Build a theory of how source citations affect user trust in consumer AI chatbots.
_Approve, edit, or revise?_
Route 3 (Refuse):
**Your question:** What should I name my startup?
Theorizer generates causal scientific theories grounded in the published literature — questions of the form "how does X affect Y, via what mechanism, in what population." Naming a startup isn't a testable causal hypothesis I can ground in papers.
How to dispatch
-
Classify the user's request:
- A clear request for theories from a research question → mode selection and then either
literature-theory-generation (automatic) or the three-stage pipeline (piecemeal).
- A request that targets one stage explicitly (e.g., "just find papers," "re-theorize from this prior run," "check novelty on these theories") → use the single matching subcommand and skip mode selection.
- A continuation of a prior run →
resume-extraction, or form-theory / evaluate-novelty with task_id of the prior run.
-
Capture the research question. If the user hasn't supplied one, ask for it. This is the only universally required input.
-
Shape the question — but only when the next call generates theories (literature-theory-generation or form-theory). Skip for:
find-and-extract standalone — pass the literature topic through.evaluate-novelty, resume-extraction — no query input needed.
See Shape the question for the rubric and the do-not-shape list.
-
Resolve mode (first run only). Skip if the user committed to a mode in their phrasing.
-
Resolve other inputs. Run asta generate-theories describe <skill-id> to see required and key optional fields. For any missing required fields and the 2–3 most impactful optionals (papers, objective, novelty), ask one AskUserQuestion question unless the user said "use defaults."
-
Surface what's being submitted. One line: "Using N papers, novelty evaluation on, accuracy-focused. Submitting — say 'tune' to change anything." This is the user-side half of the defaults-visibility pattern.
-
Submit.
- Automatic mode: one
asta generate-theories literature-theory-generation call.
- Piecemeal mode:
asta generate-theories find-and-extract first, then surface results and offer continue/stop/edit, then form-theory and evaluate-novelty in sequence with the same checkpoint pattern.
Each subcommand takes a single JSON PAYLOAD argument. Inline JSON works for short payloads; for long queries, write to a file and use @path/to.json. Object-typed inputs also accept a URI (file://, s3://, https://).
The CLI streams progress to stderr and prints the final Task JSON to stdout when the task terminates. The CLI handles polling (5s/15s/60s backoff) — don't write your own loop. Use --no-wait only if the user explicitly asked for fire-and-forget. In an interactive session, run the submit with Bash(..., run_in_background=true) and wait for the completion notification.
Defaults
Schema defaults. The runtime "Using: ..." line in dispatch step 6 surfaces whatever was actually resolved so the user can intervene before submission.
| Setting | Default | Effect | Tune when |
|---|
max_papers_to_retrieve | 10 | ~3–8 min runtime | Bump to 30 for medium runs, 100 for full coverage (15–25 min) |
generation_objective | accuracy-focused | Favors well-supported theories | Set novelty-focused if user emphasizes novelty or new theories |
do_qualified_novelty_evaluation | true | Adds 30–60 min and ~$5–10 | Skip for fast iteration. No effect in piecemeal mode (the evaluate-novelty stage runs separately) |
After the task completes
Hand off to the Asta Artifacts skill (asta-preview:artifacts) to export and index the result — it owns the path convention, manifest, and asta-documents registration. Pass generate-theories as the invoking skill and a slug shaped YYYY-MM-DD-<short-query-slug> derived from the theory query.
In piecemeal mode, export after each stage the user stops or completes at — don't wait for the full pipeline to finish.
Then write, in chat, in this order:
- Where it lives — the indexed path + the
asta documents search command + open <absolute path>. Use absolute paths.
- One-paragraph synthesis — 2–4 fresh sentences. What do the theories collectively argue? Where do they converge / diverge? What's the headline "so what"? Read the theories; don't template.
- Table of theories — one row per theory: name + 2–3 sentence core idea. Add a novelty column if novelty was scored.
No "let me know if you'd like…" tail — the search/open links cover it.
Resumption / errors
state=input-required → CLI prints a Continue with: … hint. Relay to the user; resend with asta generate-theories send-message --task-id <id> --context-id <ctx> '<reply>' and re-run the wait.state=failed → report status.message and stop.- Network/protocol errors exit non-zero with a JSON
{error: …} on stderr.
- Partial pipeline (piecemeal) → the user can always continue later by passing the prior run's
task_id to form-theory or evaluate-novelty.
References
