paper-grill-me

name

paper-grill-me

description

Run a one-question-at-a-time innovation-gate interview before algorithm design, experiment planning, or paper drafting. Use to test whether a research problem extends the knowledge boundary, whether existing methods or direct transfer already solve it, and whether proposed components map to defensible subproblems and evidence. Always write paper/PAPER_IDEA_GRILL.md, including a conditional or not-ready diagnosis. Do not use for completed-experiment claim judgment, post-paper evidence auditing, manuscript review, or prose rewriting.

Paper Grill Me

Test the paper idea before committing to an algorithm, experiment plan, or manuscript.

Scope

• Inspect available idea notes, literature notes, code, preliminary results, venue constraints, and project instructions before asking questions.
• Resolve discoverable facts from the workspace or authoritative sources instead of asking the user.
• Ask exactly one highest-value unresolved question at a time and wait for the answer.
• Include in every question: the current decision, a recommended answer, the reason, and the next judgment it unlocks.
• Do not design a complete experiment roadmap, draft paper text, or invent novelty.

Run the Three Gates in Order

Revisit an earlier gate whenever a later answer invalidates it.

Gate 1: Problem and Knowledge Boundary

Establish:

• the engineering or scientific need;
• the known boundary and affected setting;
• a core problem that remains meaningful without naming the proposed method;
• the new knowledge the research could add.

Do not pass this gate when the idea is only a new component, combination, or implementation of an already-solved problem.

Gate 2: Existing Methods and Direct-Transfer Novelty Defense

Establish:

• the strongest existing method or direct-transfer alternative;
• the strongest objection that this alternative already solves the problem;
• the concrete failure mechanism, boundary mismatch, or unverified hypothesis that prevents direct transfer;
• the evidence required to defend that distinction.

Label an untested limitation as a hypothesis. Do not present absence of evidence as proof of failure.

Gate 3: Problem, Solution, and Evidence

Decompose the core problem into the fewest necessary subproblems. Map each retained idea or method component to a subproblem, a claim, a counterclaim, and minimum convincing evidence. Reject or defer ideas that have no problem-level role.

Keep evidence planning at the requirement level. Route detailed baselines, metrics, budgets, and run order to experiment-plan after the method is stable.

Set the Verdict

Use exactly one status:

• framing-ready: all three gates pass and the central contribution is defensible.
• conditional: the direction is plausible but depends on explicit unresolved hypotheses or evidence.
• not-ready: a gate fails, the problem is already covered, or the method is driving the problem definition.

Treat conditional and not-ready as valid outcomes. Never force a positive verdict.

Always Write the Record

Create or update paper/PAPER_IDEA_GRILL.md before ending, whether the interview converges, fails a gate, or the user asks to stop. Record:

# Paper Idea Grill

## Status
framing-ready | conditional | not-ready

## Termination
converged | gate-failed | user-stopped | incomplete

## Need, Boundary, and Core Problem
## Candidate and Rejected Ideas
## Strongest Objection and Direct-Transfer Hypothesis
## One-Sentence Contribution
## Problem-Solution Mapping
## Claims and Counterclaims
## Evidence Needed
## Blocking Questions
## Recommended Thinking Directions
## Next Step

Distinguish verified facts, user assertions, hypotheses, and missing evidence inside the record.

Route the Next Step

• Route framing-ready work to paper-plan.
• Route a stable method that needs a detailed validation roadmap to experiment-plan.
• Route conditional or not-ready work back to the blocking questions in paper/PAPER_IDEA_GRILL.md.