| name | paper-yin-2024-turing-tests-ai-scientist-benchmark |
| description | Use when the agent is positioning the consuming agent/manuscript against benchmark literature, borrowing a scientific-discovery-benchmark design pattern, or auditing a benchmark/manuscript claim related to it - central claim is "Seven historically-inspired Turing-style benchmark tests (heliocentric model from celestial observations, laws of motion, vibrating-string ODE, Maxwell's equati" (arXiv preprint 2024). |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| kind | paper-skill |
| quality | positioning-skill-not-executable-science |
| harness_agnostic | true |
| layers | {"scientific_invariant":true,"executable_protocol":true,"adapter_binding_examples":false,"research_generation_affordance":true} |
| paper | {"title":"Turing Tests For An AI Scientist","first_author":"Yin, X.","authors":["Xiaoxin Yin"],"year":2024,"venue":"arXiv preprint","doi":null,"arxiv_id":"2405.13352","ads_bibcode":null} |
| domain | {"primary_theme":"other","secondary_themes":["agent-runtime","scientific-discovery-benchmark"],"missions":[],"regime":[]} |
| trigger_keywords | ["benchmark","scientific-discovery-benchmark","agent-runtime","ai-scientist","positioning","scientific-discovery-evaluation","arxiv:2405.13352"] |
| data_products | [] |
| algorithms | [{"name":"Historical-discovery benchmark scenario design"},{"name":"Per-scenario success criterion (recovery of canonical law/model)"},{"name":"Knowledge-isolation protocol (no human-curated answers in context)"}] |
| validation_target | null |
| links | {"doi_url":null,"arxiv_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13352","ads_url":null,"code_repo":null,"data_repo":null} |
| claim_boundary | {"scope":"Bounded to seven specific historical-discovery scenarios; passing them is a necessary but not sufficient condition for general scientific autonomy.","out_of_scope":["Do not interpret passing the tests as evidence of broader autonomy.","Do not use as a heliophysics benchmark directly — the celestial test is the closest analogue."]} |
| failure_modes | ["Knowledge-leakage is hard to enforce against modern foundation models.","Scenario count is small; success on seven items not a robust score."] |
| depends_on | [] |
| adapter_notes | [] |
| research_generation_affordances | [{"type":"minimal_experiment","statement":"Adapt the heliocentric-discovery test to heliophysics: give an agent PSP MAG + plasma without context, and check if it independently recovers a published claim from a known paper-skill (e.g. cascade-rate enhancement near the Sun, [[bandyopadhyay-2020-energy-transfer-psp]])."},{"type":"hypothesis","statement":"If HelioSI passes one heliophysics-Turing-style test under knowledge-isolation, this is stronger evidence than passing a HeurekaBench-style end-to-end test, because the canonical-law-recovery criterion is harder to game."}] |
| provenance | {"generated_by":"HelioSI paper-to-skill factory (Claude Opus 4.7) - wave500_agent_runtime_eval_design_045","generated_at":"2026-05-18T00:00:00Z","source_record":"sioulas-reproduction/results/paper_skill_corpus/wave500_agent_runtime_eval_design_045/manifest.json and sioulas-reproduction/results/agent_runtime_paper_scan_raw.md / agent_runtime_2026_only_synthesis.md (arxiv:2405.13352, doi:n/a)","verified_by":null,"verified_at":null} |
| tags | ["agent-runtime","paper-skill","positioning","ai-scientist","scientific-discovery-evaluation"] |
Turing Tests For An AI Scientist - paper-skill (wave500)
Skill type: positioning / evaluation / design-pattern-extractor.
This is NOT a heliophysics method. Loaded by the HelioSI runtime (or any
agent harness) to (a) audit manuscript/benchmark/positioning claims,
(b) reuse design patterns from non-heliophysics AI-scientist work, and
(c) seed research-generation affordances for heliophysics-specific
runtime upgrades. See §9 for the Layer-4 affordances.
Source type: scientific-discovery-evaluation. Executable status: benchmark-protocol-template.
1. Trigger (Layer 1)
Invoke this skill when an agent (HelioSI manuscript writer, benchmark
designer, runtime architect, or any other harness consumer) is:
- drafting/revising HelioSI manuscript sections that compare against benchmark systems
- designing a HelioSI benchmark or evaluation that should reflect the scientific-discovery-benchmark pattern
- deciding whether a HelioSI subsystem should borrow this paper's design choices or explicitly reject them
Do NOT use this skill as a heliophysics data-pipeline component - it
has no data_products[] and no executable scientific workflow over
mission data.
2. Paper claim -> verifiable task (Layer 1)
Claim (narrow form). Seven historically-inspired Turing-style benchmark tests (heliocentric model from celestial observations, laws of motion, vibrating-string ODE, Maxwell's equations from EM simulations, etc.) constitute a benchmark family for AI-scientist discovery without reliance on human-curated knowledge.
Verifiable task. A reproduction of this skill's positioning value
succeeds when an agent restates the claim above with the
claim_boundary.scope bounds intact, refuses overclaims listed in
§7, and emits the §9 Layer-4 affordances in a form a graph walker can
consume.
3. Methods / equations -> executable protocol (Layer 2, abstract)
Each item below is the paper's method as an abstract capability the
runtime would need to reproduce or borrow the design pattern. No
specific runtime (LingTai, Claude Code, an MCP server) is named here -
those belong in §8 / adapter_notes[], which are intentionally empty
for this wave500 batch.
Method 1: Historical-discovery benchmark scenario design
- Paper role: explicit named method/component of the paper's contribution.
- Abstract procedure: the runtime that wants to borrow this pattern must be able to (a) instantiate the component as a callable, (b) feed it the manuscript/benchmark/sibling-skill inputs from §4, and (c) emit an artifact a Layer-4 affordance can reference.
Method 2: Per-scenario success criterion (recovery of canonical law/model)
- Paper role: explicit named method/component of the paper's contribution.
- Abstract procedure: the runtime that wants to borrow this pattern must be able to (a) instantiate the component as a callable, (b) feed it the manuscript/benchmark/sibling-skill inputs from §4, and (c) emit an artifact a Layer-4 affordance can reference.
Method 3: Knowledge-isolation protocol (no human-curated answers in context)
- Paper role: explicit named method/component of the paper's contribution.
- Abstract procedure: the runtime that wants to borrow this pattern must be able to (a) instantiate the component as a callable, (b) feed it the manuscript/benchmark/sibling-skill inputs from §4, and (c) emit an artifact a Layer-4 affordance can reference.
4. Data / instruments -> abstract tool contracts (Layer 2, abstract)
This paper is a positioning / evaluation / design-pattern source, not a
heliophysics-data workflow. The "data" the skill consumes is the
HelioSI manuscript draft, benchmark spec, runtime architecture
description, or sibling paper-skills.
| Input artifact | Role | Capability requirement |
|---|
HelioSI manuscript draft (heliosi_manuscript_draft.md) | Target of positioning checklist | Filesystem read |
| HelioSI benchmark spec | Target of benchmark-design template | Filesystem read |
| Sibling paper-skills (this corpus) | Source of cross-references | Skill-catalog read |
| External paper (DOI/arXiv) | Source for full-text verification (currently TODO) | Web fetch (optional) |
5. Validation target -> benchmark artifact (Layer 2)
Not benchmarked yet - this is a positioning-skill-not-executable-science
entry. Promotion requires either (a) a manuscript-coverage audit
artifact, (b) a benchmark-construction prototype, or (c) a Layer-3
adapter that wires the design pattern into HelioSI and runs it
end-to-end on a heliophysics test case.
6. Failure modes -> skill memory (Layer 1)
Pitfalls a future agent applying this skill must remember:
- Knowledge-leakage is hard to enforce against modern foundation models.
- Scenario count is small; success on seven items not a robust score.
7. Claim boundary (Layer 1)
In scope. Bounded to seven specific historical-discovery scenarios; passing them is a necessary but not sufficient condition for general scientific autonomy.
Out of scope - do NOT generalize beyond:
- Do not interpret passing the tests as evidence of broader autonomy.
- Do not use as a heliophysics benchmark directly — the celestial test is the closest analogue.
If a downstream task asks for a generalization listed above, refuse it
and return a reference to a sibling paper-skill that covers it (or
report none).
8. Links and adapter binding examples (Layer 3, optional)
Adapter notes intentionally empty for this batch - the skill remains
executable from §3-§5 alone on any agent harness that supports
filesystem reads + skill-catalog walks.
9. Skill graph + research-generation affordances (Layer 4 and graph edges)
Skill graph (depends_on edges).
No paper-skill dependencies (self-contained positioning/design-pattern source).
Research-generation affordances - how this paper helps HelioSI (or
any heliophysics agent) generate or evaluate new scientific ideas:
- Minimal_experiment - Adapt the heliocentric-discovery test to heliophysics: give an agent PSP MAG + plasma without context, and check if it independently recovers a published claim from a known paper-skill (e.g. cascade-rate enhancement near the Sun, [[bandyopadhyay-2020-energy-transfer-psp]]). Related: n/a.
- Hypothesis - If HelioSI passes one heliophysics-Turing-style test under knowledge-isolation, this is stronger evidence than passing a HeurekaBench-style end-to-end test, because the canonical-law-recovery criterion is harder to game. Related: n/a.
Notes
- This SKILL.md is a
wave500_agent_runtime_eval_design_045 batch
entry. It is harness-agnostic by construction; do not bind it to a
specific runtime without converting Layer-3 adapter_notes[] to
populated.
- The
provenance.source_record field points to the inventory anchor
used to write this skill; full-text verification of all identifiers
is pending and any TODO_verify_with_full_text token must be
resolved before promoting past stub tier.
