メニュー
Use when a user needs distinct, feasible Research Architect research-question options from a raw topic, available materials, constraints, and—when available—transferable logic from a target reference paper.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use when reviewing, revising, or deciding whether to complete a Research Architect draft, especially when its reference adaptation, design, evidence, citations, claim boundaries, copying risk, or missing upstream artifacts need an auditable diagnosis.
Use when a Research Architect project or existing draft needs claim-level literature support for background, positioning, methods, interpretation, limitations, or revision, rather than broad generic literature searching.
Use when a Research Architect candidate research spine and approved exemplar adaptation need to become a feasible, field-appropriate study design, analysis plan, validation strategy, and user action plan.
Use when a Research Architect project has an evidence-ready spine, evidence and claim trail, citation support, and adapted reference logic that need to become a field-appropriate first draft or an audited revision.
Use when executed research materials, results, observations, analyses, or draft claims need to become a Research Architect evidence bank, claim register, evidence-display plan, and bounded interpretation trail.
Use when starting or resuming a Research Architect project—including an existing draft that needs review—and you need to capture target reference papers, project materials, constraints, verification status, and the next deliverable.
| name | research-architect-brainstorm |
| description | Use when a user needs distinct, feasible Research Architect research-question options from a raw topic, available materials, constraints, and—when available—transferable logic from a target reference paper. |
Generate genuinely different research options, not topic paraphrases. A strong option changes the research logic, evidence path, contribution, or scope.
Read when available:
paper_output/project_config.json
paper_output/source_map.md
paper_output/source_inventory.md
paper_output/exemplar_logic_profile.md # when accessible target references exist
paper_output/exemplar_adaptation_plan.md # preliminary or approved version when available
Read ../research-architect/references/brainstorming-framework.md. Use ../research-architect/templates/idea_candidate_matrix.csv as the column contract and write paper_output/idea_candidate_matrix.md as a Markdown table.
Generate 2–5 candidates using the reference-logic, adaptation, problem, material, inquiry, warrant, disconfirmation, and reader-value lenses. Create:
paper_output/problem_landscape.md
paper_output/idea_candidate_matrix.md
paper_output/research_question_options.md
paper_output/feasibility_filter.md
Each option states the problem/tension, research question, inherited reference function when applicable, required adaptation, independent contribution, needed and available evidence, provisional design family, claim boundary, feasibility, and first action.
Classify candidates as advance, needs_more_material, defer, or reject. A conceptually strong option may advance when it has explicit premises, warrants, counterarguments, and scope.
Accept a raw idea plus constraints even without intake artifacts. State the assumptions, create only the minimum candidate set, and route to intake before treating them as a full project record. Without an accessible target paper, do not invent its logic; develop independent options and let literature mapping identify useful exemplars later.
For guided depth, present the smallest useful 2–3 options and their feasibility filter. standard and deep add the full matrix and broader alternatives.