new-project

name	new-project
description	Start a new research project by conducting a structured interview to formalize a research idea, then generates research questions with identification strategies and a project spec. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to develop or document a new research idea — not to search for literature or data. Triggers include: "new project", "start research", "I have an idea", "help me develop this", "I want to study X", "help me formalize this idea", "what's my research question", "what identification strategy should I use", "write up my project idea", or when the user describes a topic they want to turn into a paper.
argument-hint	[brief topic or 'start fresh']
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob","Write"]

New Research Project

Formalize a research idea into a concrete project specification with testable hypotheses and empirical strategies.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — a topic, phenomenon, dataset, or "start fresh" for open-ended exploration.

This skill runs in three phases. Phase 1 is conversational — ask one or two questions at a time and wait for responses. Phases 2 and 3 run automatically after the interview.

---

Phase 1: Research Interview

Goal: Draw out the researcher's thinking and establish a clear research question.

Ask questions one or two at a time. Build on each answer before moving to the next phase. Do NOT use AskUserQuestion — ask directly in your response. A good interview runs 4–6 exchanges.

Question Bank (select and adapt based on context)

The Puzzle (start here):

• "What phenomenon or puzzle are you trying to understand?"
• "What do you observe in the data / world that doesn't fit the standard explanation?"

Why It Matters:

• "Why does this matter? Who should care about the answer?"
• "Is there a policy lever here, or is this more about understanding a mechanism?"

Theoretical Motivation:

• "What's your intuition for why X happens — what's the mechanism?"
• "What would standard theory predict? Do you expect to find something different, and why?"

Data and Setting:

• "Do you have data in mind, or are you open on the data source?"
• "Is there a specific context, time period, country, or institutional setting you're focused on?"

Identification:

• "Is there a natural experiment, policy change, or discontinuity you could exploit?"
• "What's the biggest threat to a causal interpretation — what would a skeptic say?"

Expected Results + Contribution:

• "What would you expect to find? What would genuinely surprise you?"
• "What existing papers are closest to this? What gap does yours fill?"

When to Stop Interviewing

Move to Phase 2 when you have:

• A clear research question (one sentence)
• At least one plausible identification strategy
• Some sense of what data exists or is needed
• The motivation / contribution

If after 3 exchanges the user keeps giving vague answers, move to Phase 2 anyway and flag the open questions.

---

Phase 2: Research Ideation

Goal: Generate 3–5 structured research questions covering the full range from descriptive to causal.

Announce the transition: "Great — I have enough to generate a structured set of research questions. Let me build that out now."

Then generate 3–5 research questions ordered by type:

Type	What It Asks
Descriptive	What are the patterns? How has X evolved?
Correlational	What factors are associated with X, controlling for Z?
Causal	What is the causal effect of X on Y?
Mechanism	Through what channel does X affect Y?
Policy	Would intervention X improve outcome Y?

For each RQ, develop:

• Hypothesis — testable prediction with expected direction/magnitude
• Identification Strategy:
  • Method (DiD, RDD, IV, synthetic control, etc.)
  • Treatment (what varies, when, where)
  • Control group (comparison units)
  • Key assumption (parallel trends, exclusion restriction, etc.)
  • Main robustness checks (pre-trends test, placebo, etc.)
• Data requirements — what variables, time period, geography, unit of observation
• Key pitfalls — 2 main threats to identification + mitigations
• Related work — 2-3 papers using similar approaches (name only, no fabrication)

Rank the questions by feasibility × contribution:

RQ	Feasibility	Contribution	Priority
1	High	High	★★★
2	High	Medium	★★
...	...	...	...

---

Phase 3: Save Project Spec

Produce the unified project spec document and save it.

Save to: quality_reports/project_spec_[sanitized_topic].md

# Research Project: [Working Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Researcher:** [from CLAUDE.md if available]

---

## Research Question

[Single clear sentence]

## Motivation

[2–3 paragraphs: why this matters, theoretical context, policy relevance, what the answer would change]

## Research Questions

### RQ1: [Question] — Priority: ★★★ (Feasibility: High / Contribution: High)

**Type:** Causal

**Hypothesis:** [Testable prediction with expected sign]

**Identification Strategy:**
- **Method:** [e.g., Staggered DiD with Sun–Abraham estimator]
- **Treatment:** [What varies and when]
- **Control group:** [Comparison units]
- **Key assumption:** [e.g., Parallel pre-trends conditional on controls]
- **Robustness:** [Pre-trends test, placebo outcomes, alternative control groups]

**Data Requirements:**
- [Dataset or data type needed]
- [Key variables: treatment proxy, outcome, controls]
- [Time period and geography]

**Key Pitfalls:**
1. [Threat + mitigation]
2. [Threat + mitigation]

**Related Work:** [Author (Year)], [Author (Year)]

---

[Repeat for RQ2–RQ5]

---

## Priority Empirical Strategy

[1 paragraph recommending the single highest-priority RQ and why, with the specific identification approach]

## Open Questions

[Issues raised in the interview that need further thought before committing to a strategy]

---

## Suggested Next Steps

1. **`/lit-review [topic]`** — Search the literature for related work and citation chains
2. **`/data-finder [topic]`** — Find and assess datasets for the priority RQ
 Once data is secured:  to begin analysis

---

After Saving

Tell the user:

• The spec is saved to quality_reports/project_spec_[topic].md
• Recommended next step: /lit-review [topic] to build the literature foundation
• Then: /data-finder [topic] to identify and assess data sources