idea-creator

name	idea-creator
description	Generate and rank research ideas given a broad direction. Use when user says "找idea", "brainstorm ideas", "generate research ideas", "what can we work on", or wants to explore a research area for publishable directions.
argument-hint	["research-direction"]
allowed-tools	Bash(*), Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent, Skill, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__manual_review__review, mcp__manual_review__review_reply

Research Idea Creator

Generate publishable research ideas for: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Given a broad research direction from the user, systematically generate, validate, and rank concrete research ideas. Standalone, Phase 1's landscape survey is inline (WebSearch — it does not invoke /research-lit); Phases 4-5 invoke /novelty-check, /run-experiment, and /monitor-experiment for validation and pilots. For the full sub-skill pipeline (/research-lit → idea generation → /novelty-check → /research-review), run /idea-discovery (Workflow 1), which orchestrates this skill.

Constants

• PILOT_MAX_HOURS = 2 — Skip any pilot estimated to take > 2 hours per GPU. Flag as "needs manual pilot".
• PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS = 3 — Hard timeout: kill pilots exceeding 3 hours. Collect partial results if available.
• MAX_PILOT_IDEAS = 3 — Pilot at most 3 ideas in parallel. Additional ideas are validated on paper only.
• MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS = 8 — Total GPU budget for all pilots combined.
• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — Default model for the Codex backend. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., gpt-5.5, o3, gpt-4o). Manual backend uses whatever model the user chooses, but it must be a non-Claude model — the executor is Claude, so pasting into any Claude product makes Claude judge Claude and voids the cross-model invariant (see shared-references/reviewer-routing.md).
• REVIEWER_BACKEND = codex — Default: Codex MCP (xhigh). Override with — reviewer: oracle-pro for Oracle MCP, or — reviewer: manual for Manual Review MCP. If manual-review MCP is unavailable, stop and print the install command; do not fall back to Codex. See shared-references/reviewer-routing.md.
• OUTPUT_DIR = idea-stage/ — All idea-stage outputs go here. Create the directory if it doesn't exist.

💡 Override via argument, e.g., /idea-creator "topic" — pilot budget: 4h per idea, 20h total.

Reviewer Calling Convention

When calling the reviewer for idea evaluation, branch on REVIEWER_BACKEND:

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = codex: Use mcp__codex__codex for new review threads. Use mcp__codex__codex-reply for follow-up rounds (reuse threadId).

If REVIEWER_BACKEND = manual: Use mcp__manual_review__review for new review threads with: prompt: [exact same prompt that would go to Codex] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"} Save the returned threadId. Use mcp__manual_review__review_reply for follow-up rounds with: threadId: [saved manual-review threadId] prompt: [follow-up prompt] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}

Content fidelity: the manual reviewer should see the same substantive bundle content Codex would read. If the manual UI supports file upload / attachment, reuse the same bundle file; otherwise paste the bundle contents inline because remote web UIs cannot read your local filesystem paths. Review tracing applies equally to both backends.

Workflow

Phase 0: Load Research Wiki (if active)

Skip this phase entirely if research-wiki/ does not exist.

If research-wiki/ exists, resolve the canonical helper using the shared resolution chain (see ../research-wiki/SKILL.md for the contract):

cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
ARIS_REPO="${ARIS_REPO:-$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null)}"
WIKI_SCRIPT=".aris/tools/research_wiki.py"
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || WIKI_SCRIPT="tools/research_wiki.py"
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && WIKI_SCRIPT="$ARIS_REPO/tools/research_wiki.py"; }
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || {
  echo "WARN: research_wiki.py not found at .aris/tools/, tools/, or \$ARIS_REPO/tools/." >&2
  echo "      The idea-creation primary output (idea ranking) will still be produced." >&2
  echo "      Wiki integration (load query_pack, write idea pages, add edges, rebuild query_pack) will be skipped." >&2
  echo "      Fix: rerun 'bash tools/install_aris.sh', export ARIS_REPO, or 'cp <ARIS-repo>/tools/research_wiki.py tools/'." >&2
  WIKI_SCRIPT=""
}

if research-wiki/query_pack.md exists AND is less than 7 days old:
    Read query_pack.md and use it as initial landscape context:
    - Treat listed gaps as priority search seeds
    - Treat failed ideas as a banlist (do NOT regenerate similar ideas)
    - Treat top papers as known prior work (do not re-search them)
    Still run Phase 1 below for papers from the last 3-6 months (wiki may be stale)
else if research-wiki/ exists but query_pack.md is stale or missing:
    if [ -n "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ]: python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" rebuild_query_pack research-wiki/
    Then read query_pack.md as above

Phase 1: Landscape Survey (5-10 min)

Map the research area to understand what exists and where the gaps are.

1. Scan local paper library first: Check papers/ and literature/ in the project directory for existing PDFs. Read first 3 pages of relevant papers to build a baseline understanding before searching online. This avoids re-discovering what the user already knows.

2. Search recent literature using WebSearch:

   • Top venues in the last 2 years (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, etc.)
   • Recent arXiv preprints (last 6 months)
   • Use 5+ different query formulations
   • Read abstracts and introductions of the top 10-15 papers

3. Build a landscape map:

   • Group papers by sub-direction / approach
   • Identify what has been tried and what hasn't
   • Note recurring limitations mentioned in "Future Work" sections
   • Flag any open problems explicitly stated by multiple papers

4. Identify structural gaps:

   • Methods that work in domain A but haven't been tried in domain B
   • Contradictory findings between papers (opportunity for resolution)
   • Assumptions that everyone makes but nobody has tested
   • Scaling regimes that haven't been explored
   • Diagnostic questions that nobody has asked

Phase 1.5: Parallel lens fan-out (Tier-aware) — breadth, not verdict

Idea generation benefits from breadth: more independent analytic angles surface more candidate ideas. This skill fans out candidate generation across analytic lenses, then funnels every candidate through the single Phase-4 cross-model jury. Fan-out widens the jury's input; it never makes the accept/reject decision. This follows shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md; the verdict stays cross-model per shared-references/acceptance-gate.md (idea novelty/quality is a Type-B verdict — same-family generation is fine, same-family acquittal is not).

Lenses (the structural-gap angles from Phase 1, step 3): method-transfer (works in domain A, untried in B) · contradiction (conflicting findings to resolve) · untested-assumption (everyone assumes, nobody tested) · scaling-regime (unexplored regime) · diagnostic (question nobody asked). This set is a floor, not a ceiling — add a domain-specific lens when the direction warrants.

Tier-portable dispatch (the Phase-4 jury downstream is identical on every tier):

• Tier 1 (Workflow available): spawn one Claude subagent per lens; each runs the Phase-1 survey through its lens and the Phase-2 generation prompt restricted to that lens, returning candidates as structured output.
• Tier 2 (Agent tool, no Workflow): spawn the same per-lens subagents via the Agent tool.
• Tier 3 (no spawning): enumerate the lenses sequentially in one pass — the original single-thread behavior, made explicit. No capability assumed.

Why the lens shards are Claude, not Codex. Generation is candidate production, not a verdict, so same-family is safe — and Codex MCP is serial (concurrent codex calls hang), so spending its scarce capacity on parallel generation is both unsafe-to-parallelize and wasteful. Reserve Codex for the one Phase-4 jury call. On Tier 1/2 the lens subagents are the generators; the single Phase-2 codex brainstorm below still runs once as an optional cross-model seed (a generator, not a judge), and its ideas join the merged pool.

Per-shard output (the generation-fan-out schema from fan-out-pattern.md — shard_id + candidates[] + per-item dedup_key):

{"shard_id": "<lens id>", "candidates": [{"summary": "...", "hypothesis": "...",
  "mve": "...", "contribution_type": "...", "risk": "...", "effort": "...",
  "dedup_key": "<hypothesis slug — the mechanical-dedup identity>"}]}

Merge + mechanical dedup: union all lenses' ideas; cluster near-identical ideas by hypothesis (mechanical similarity only — never drop one for being "weak"; weakness is a Phase-4 verdict, not a merge step). The deduped union is the candidate set that enters Phase 3.

Phase 2: Idea Generation (brainstorm with external LLM)

Use the selected reviewer backend (see Reviewer Calling Convention) for divergent thinking.

For the codex backend, do not inline the full landscape + gaps prompt once it stops being tiny. Write the full brainstorming request to idea-stage/codex_brainstorm_bundle.md, then keep the MCP prompt short:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: REVIEWER_MODEL
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Read the idea-generation bundle at <absolute path to
    idea-stage/codex_brainstorm_bundle.md> and follow all instructions in it.

For manual backend: use mcp__manual_review__review with the same bundle contents. If the manual-review UI supports attachments, attach idea-stage/codex_brainstorm_bundle.md; otherwise paste the bundle contents inline. Save the returned threadId for Phase 4 follow-up.

Bundle contents:

    You are a senior ML researcher brainstorming research ideas.

    Research direction: [user's direction]

    Here is the current landscape:
    [write the Phase-1 landscape map into this bundle file]

    Key gaps identified:
    [write the Phase-1 gap summary into this bundle file]

    Generate 8-12 concrete research ideas. For each idea:
    1. One-sentence summary
    2. Core hypothesis (what you expect to find and why)
    3. Minimum viable experiment (what's the cheapest way to test this?)
    4. Expected contribution type: empirical finding / new method / theoretical result / diagnostic
    5. Risk level: LOW (likely works) / MEDIUM (50-50) / HIGH (speculative)
    6. Estimated effort: days / weeks / months

    Prioritize ideas that are:
    - Testable with moderate compute (8x RTX 3090 or less)
    - Likely to produce a clear positive OR negative result (both are publishable)
    - Not "apply X to Y" unless the application reveals genuinely surprising insights
    - Differentiated from the 10-15 papers above

    Be creative but grounded. A great idea is one where the answer matters regardless of which way it goes.

Save the threadId for follow-up.

Phase 3: Mechanical consolidation + objective feasibility gate

This phase does NOT judge idea quality, novelty, or impact. Those are Type-B verdicts reserved for the Phase-4 cross-model jury (see shared-references/acceptance-gate.md). Eliminating ideas here on a same-family novelty or impact call would pre-filter the jury's input with same-family quality judgment — exactly what fan-out-pattern.md forbids. Phase 3 only (a) finishes the mechanical dedup from the fan-out merge and (b) drops ideas that are objectively out of budget. Everything else passes through annotated, not eliminated — the jury decides.

1. Objective feasibility gate (Type-A — safe same-model): drop an idea ONLY on a mechanical, budget-based fact:

   • estimated compute > 1 week of available GPU time, OR
   • requires a dataset that is provably unavailable. These are objective resource facts. Do not drop on "implementation looks complex" — annotate complexity as effort_note instead.

2. Novelty signal — ANNOTATE, do not eliminate: for each surviving idea, do 2-3 targeted searches and attach a prior_work note (what looks related, with links). This is input for the jury, not a filter. The authoritative novelty verdict is Phase 4's /novelty-check (multi-source + cross-model). Do not drop an idea here because it "might already be done."

3. Impact signal — ANNOTATE, do not eliminate: attach a one-line so_what note (why the result would matter either way). Do not drop on a same-family "a reviewer wouldn't care" call — "would a reviewer care?" is precisely the question the Phase-4 cross-model devil's-advocate asks. Forward the note; let the jury rule.

Every feasible, non-duplicate idea — carrying its prior_work, so_what, and effort_note annotations — proceeds to Phase 4. Typically only the budget-infeasible are dropped; the cross-model jury, not the executor, does the quality narrowing.

Phase 4: Deep Validation (the cross-model jury)

This is the jury. It receives the FULL annotated candidate set from Phase 3 (Phase 3 no longer pre-narrows on quality), and the cross-model reviewer — not the executor — does the quality/novelty narrowing. Run the steps in this order so the cheap cross-model triage gates the expensive per-idea novelty search:

1. Cross-model triage (devil's advocate) — ranks ALL candidates first. Use the selected reviewer backend (see Reviewer Calling Convention). For codex, use mcp__codex__codex-reply (same thread). For manual, use mcp__manual_review__review_reply with the saved threadId. For the codex backend, write the full annotated candidate set to idea-stage/codex_triage_bundle.md and send only a path-based follow-up:

   Read the idea-triage bundle at <absolute path to
   idea-stage/codex_triage_bundle.md> and follow all instructions in it.
   

   For the manual backend, attach that same bundle if possible; otherwise paste its contents inline. Bundle contents:

   Here is the full annotated candidate set (deduped, budget-feasible):
   [write all candidates with their prior_work / so_what / effort_note notes]
   
   For each, play devil's advocate:
   - What's the strongest objection a reviewer would raise?
   - What's the most likely failure mode?
   - Is the prior_work note a real novelty problem, or differentiable?
   - How would you rank these for a top venue submission?
   - Which 2-3 would you actually work on, and why?
   

   The reviewer's ranking is the authoritative quality verdict. The executor does not eliminate candidates on its own taste before or instead of this.

2. Novelty check — on the reviewer's top picks only. Run the /novelty-check workflow (multi-source search + cross-model verification) on the ideas the triage ranked worth pursuing. This bounds the expensive multi-source search to the survivors instead of every candidate, while keeping the novelty verdict cross-model.

3. Select for pilots: take the top 2-3 ideas that survive both the cross-model triage and the novelty check forward to Phase 5.

Phase 5: Parallel Pilot Experiments (for top 2-3 ideas)

Before committing to a full research effort, run cheap pilot experiments to get empirical signal. This is the key differentiator from paper-only validation.

1. Design pilots: For each top idea, define the minimal experiment that would give a positive or negative signal:

   • Single seed, small scale (e.g., small dataset subset, fewer epochs)
   • Target: 30 min - PILOT_MAX_HOURS per pilot on 1 GPU
   • Estimate GPU-hours BEFORE launching. If estimated time > PILOT_MAX_HOURS, reduce scale (fewer epochs, smaller subset) or flag as "needs manual pilot"
   • Clear success metric defined upfront (e.g., "if metric improves by > 1%, signal is positive")

2. Deploy in parallel: Use /run-experiment to launch pilots on different GPUs simultaneously:

   GPU 0: Pilot for Idea 1
   GPU 1: Pilot for Idea 2
   GPU 2: Pilot for Idea 3
   

   Use run_in_background: true to launch all at once.

3. Collect results: Use /monitor-experiment to check progress. If any pilot exceeds PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS, kill it and collect partial results. Once all pilots complete (or timeout), compare:

   • Which ideas showed positive signal?
   • Which showed null/negative results? (eliminate or deprioritize)
   • Any surprising findings that suggest a pivot?
   • Total GPU-hours consumed (track against MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS budget)

4. Re-rank based on empirical evidence: Update the idea ranking using pilot results. An idea with strong pilot signal jumps ahead of a theoretically appealing but untested idea.

Note: Skip this phase if the ideas are purely theoretical or if no GPU is available. Flag skipped ideas as "needs pilot validation" in the report.

Phase 6: Output — Ranked Idea Report

Write a structured report to idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md:

Lead every recommended idea with its method, in plain language. Before any hypothesis, novelty score, or claim, state in 2–4 concrete steps what we actually build / train / run — no jargon, no claim-IDs. The reader must understand what we do before what we claim; claims (hypothesis, validation, expected outcome) come after and read as the method's acceptance criteria.

# Research Idea Report

**Direction**: [user's research direction]
**Generated**: [date]
**Ideas evaluated**: X generated → Y survived filtering → Z piloted → W recommended

## Landscape Summary
[3-5 paragraphs on the current state of the field]

## Recommended Ideas (ranked)

### Idea 1: [title]
- **Method (what we actually do)**: [2–4 concrete steps in plain language — what we build / train / run. No jargon, no claim-IDs, no hypothesis yet. Lead with this so the reader grasps the approach first.]
- **Hypothesis**: [one sentence]
- **Minimum experiment**: [concrete description]
- **Expected outcome**: [what success/failure looks like]
- **Novelty**: X/10 — closest work: [paper]
- **Feasibility**: [compute, data, implementation estimates]
- **Risk**: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH
- **Contribution type**: empirical / method / theory / diagnostic
- **Pilot result**: [POSITIVE: metric +X% / NEGATIVE: no signal / SKIPPED: needs GPU]
- **Reviewer's likely objection**: [strongest counterargument]
- **Why we should do this**: [1-2 sentences]

### Idea 2: [title]
...

## Eliminated Ideas (for reference)
| Idea | Reason eliminated |
|------|-------------------|
| ... | Already done by [paper] |
| ... | Requires > 1 week GPU time |
| ... | Result wouldn't be interesting either way |

## Pilot Experiment Results
| Idea | GPU | Time | Key Metric | Signal |
|------|-----|------|------------|--------|
| Idea 1 | GPU 0 | 45 min | +2.3% CE | POSITIVE |
| Idea 2 | GPU 1 | 30 min | -0.1% CE | NEGATIVE |
| Idea 3 | GPU 2 | 1.5 hr | +0.8% CE | WEAK POSITIVE |

## Suggested Execution Order
1. Start with Idea 1 (positive pilot signal, lowest risk)
2. Idea 3 as backup (weak signal, may need larger scale to confirm)
3. Idea 2 eliminated by pilot — negative result documented

## Next Steps
- [ ] Scale up Idea 1 to full experiment (multi-seed, full dataset)
- [ ] If confirmed, invoke /auto-review-loop for full iteration

Phase 7: Write Ideas to Research Wiki (if active)

Skip this phase entirely if research-wiki/ does not exist.

This is critical for spiral learning — without it, ideas/ stays empty and re-ideation has no memory.

$WIKI_SCRIPT was resolved in Phase 0 above. If Phase 0 did not run (no research-wiki/), skip this phase. The idea page is written by a deterministic helper (upsert_idea) — NOT freehand markdown — so every generation, including a re-run with updated constraints, records reliably (one CLI call per idea, not a prose step the model can skip). upsert_idea writes the page, wires the inspired_by / addresses_gap edges, and rebuilds index + query_pack in a single call. Default skip-on-exist: a re-ideation run records NEW ideas without clobbering an existing idea whose outcome /result-to-claim may already have enriched. If $WIKI_SCRIPT is empty (helper unreachable) the ideas are NOT recorded and a single WARN prints (fix: bash tools/install_aris.sh or export ARIS_REPO).

if research-wiki/ exists AND [ -n "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ]:
    for each idea in recommended_ideas + eliminated_ideas:
        # recommended → --stage proposed; eliminated-at-ideation → --stage archived.
        # --outcome stays "pending" (the experiment verdict, negative/mixed/positive,
        # is set LATER by /result-to-claim — never guessed here).
        python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" upsert_idea research-wiki/ \
          --slug "<stable-idea-id>" --title "<idea title>" \
          --stage "<proposed|archived>" --outcome pending \
          --thesis "<core hypothesis / direction>" \
          --risks "<novelty / feasibility risks; why killed if eliminated>" \
          --based-on "<paper:slug,paper:slug2>" --target-gaps "<G2,G10>" \
          || echo "WARN: upsert_idea failed for <id> (continuing; audit/report unaffected)" >&2
    python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" log research-wiki/ "idea-creator wrote N ideas (M recommended, K eliminated)"
elif research-wiki/ exists AND [ -z "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ]:
    echo "WARN: ideas NOT recorded — research_wiki.py unreachable (see Phase 0). Fix: bash tools/install_aris.sh or export ARIS_REPO." >&2

Output Protocols

Follow these shared protocols for all output files:

• Output Composition Protocol — see composed-mode note below
• Output Versioning Protocol — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
• Output Manifest Protocol — maintain MANIFEST.md only above the 15-artifact threshold (not "log every output")
• Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting

Composed mode — if invoked with — composed: <canonical-report-path> (e.g. /idea-discovery passes — composed: idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md), that report is the single canonical deliverable: fold the literature survey, novelty notes, and any external-review conclusions into it as sections/appendices instead of emitting LIT_LANDSCAPE.md / RESEARCH_REVIEW.md / MANIFEST.md alongside. Pilot scratch is disposable (keep the script + one results file; delete launcher logs and redundant *_summary.json); review traces stay in .aris/traces/… and the report cites the path. Default (no — composed: directive): standalone — write IDEA_REPORT.md and any other documented files as normal. Never infer composed mode from a report file merely existing. Full rules: shared-references/output-composition.md.

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.

• The user provides a DIRECTION, not an idea. Your job is to generate the ideas.

• Quantity first, quality second: brainstorm broadly, then filter ruthlessly.

• A good negative result is just as publishable as a positive one. Prioritize ideas where the answer matters regardless of direction.

• Don't fall in love with any idea before validating it. Be willing to kill ideas.

• Always estimate compute cost. An idea that needs 1000 GPU-hours is not actionable for most researchers.

• "Apply X to Y" is the lowest form of research idea. Push for deeper questions.

• Include eliminated ideas in the report — they save future time by documenting dead ends.

• If the user's direction is too broad (e.g., "NLP", "computer vision", "reinforcement learning"), STOP and ask them to narrow it. A good direction is 1-2 sentences specifying the problem, domain, and constraint — e.g., "factorized gap in discrete diffusion LMs" or "sample efficiency of offline RL with image observations". Without sufficient specificity, generated ideas will be too vague to run experiments on.

• Anti-hallucination for cited papers. When the landscape survey or novelty justification cites specific papers, every cited paper must pass pre-search verification (verify_papers.py, canonical name resolved per shared-references/integration-contract.md §2; 3-layer arXiv / CrossRef / S2 fallback inside the helper itself). Policy D1 (primary + degraded-output fallback): if the helper is unresolved or its invocation fails, mark candidates [UNVERIFIED] and continue rather than dropping or guessing. Never fabricate arXiv IDs, DOIs, or titles from memory. Full protocol in shared-references/citation-discipline.md § Pre-Search Verification Protocol.

Composing with Other Skills

After this skill produces the ranked report:

/idea-creator "direction"     → ranked ideas
/novelty-check "top idea"     → deep novelty verification (already done in Phase 4, but user can re-run)
/research-review "top idea"   → external critical feedback
implement                     → write code
/run-experiment               → deploy to GPU
/auto-review-loop             → iterate until submission-ready

Review Tracing

After each reviewer call (mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__manual_review__review, or mcp__manual_review__review_reply), save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Use save_trace.sh (resolved per the chain in shared-references/integration-contract.md §2) or write files directly to .aris/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).