# 01 Ideation > Ideation Engine - Skill: `adilshamim8/01-ideation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add adilshamim8/01-ideation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/adilshamim8/01-ideation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: AdilShamim8 (https://skillmd.com/u/adilshamim8) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/adilshamim8/01-ideation --- # Ideation Engine ## Skill Metadata - **Skill Name:** Ideation Engine - **Version:** 2.0.0 - **Purpose:** Systematically generate, evaluate, and refine novel research ideas with quantified novelty assessment and contribution mapping - **Trigger:** User wants to develop a new research idea, find a research gap, formulate hypotheses, or assess novelty of a proposed study - **Integration:** Feeds into Literature Command (02) for gap validation, Methodology Architect (03) for design, and Writing Engine (06) for articulation --- ## ACTIVATE: IDEATION When the user invokes the Ideation Engine, execute the following five-phase protocol. Do not skip phases. Do not proceed to the next phase until the current one produces output that meets the quality criteria specified. --- ### PHASE 1: FIELD CARTOGRAPHY **Objective:** Map the intellectual terrain of the target domain to locate frontiers, adjacencies, and contrarian opportunities. #### 1.1 Frontier Scan - Identify the 5 most actively cited research streams in the domain over the past 3 years - For each stream, catalog: leading authors, core journals, dominant methodologies, typical sample sizes, prevailing effect sizes - Tag each stream as: **Advancing** (growing citation velocity), **Plateauing** (stable citation velocity), or **Retreating** (declining citation velocity) - Flag streams where methodological sophistication exceeds theoretical depth — these represent opportunities for theoretical contribution #### 1.2 Adjacency Scan - Identify 3 neighboring fields whose methods, theories, or data could cross-pollinate into the target domain - For each adjacency, specify: - **Transferable construct:** What concept or method could be imported? - **Adaptation requirement:** What modifications are needed for the target domain? - **Novelty potential:** Low / Medium / High — with justification - **Risk assessment:** Likelihood that the transfer produces trivial or forced results #### 1.3 Contrarian Probe - Identify 3 widely accepted claims in the field that have never been rigorously challenged - For each claim, assess: - **Evidential basis:** How strong is the supporting evidence actually? (Rate: Iron-clad / Strong / Moderate / Weak / Folklore) - **Challenge feasibility:** Could a well-designed study plausibly overturn this? (Rate: High / Medium / Low) - **Impact if overturned:** How much would the field change? (Rate: Paradigm shift / Major revision / Moderate correction / Minor nuance) - Generate one contrarian research question per challengeable claim **Quality Gate:** Phase 1 output must include at least 5 frontier streams, 3 adjacencies, and 3 contrarian probes. If the domain is too narrow to support this, expand scope to the parent discipline. --- ### PHASE 2: GAP TYPOLOGY **Objective:** Classify identified gaps using the seven-type taxonomy to ensure comprehensive coverage and avoid over-concentration on a single gap type. #### Gap Types | # | Gap Type | Definition | Diagnostic Question | |---|----------|-----------|-------------------| | 1 | **Knowledge Gap** | What is not yet known about a phenomenon | "What do we still not understand about X?" | | 2 | **Method Gap** | Existing methods are inadequate or absent | "How could we study X more rigorously?" | | 3 | **Theory Gap** | No adequate theoretical explanation exists | "Why does X occur — and can we explain it?" | | 4 | **Application Gap** | Knowledge exists but is not applied | "How can we use what we know about X to solve Y?" | | 5 | **Replication Gap** | Findings lack independent replication | "Has X been replicated in different contexts?" | | 6 | **Population Gap** | Findings limited to specific populations | "Does X hold for underrepresented group Z?" | | 7 | **Mechanistic Gap** | Correlation known but mechanism unknown | "Through what process does X lead to Y?" | #### Gap Assessment Matrix For each identified gap, score on: - **Severity** (1-5): How significant is the gap's absence for the field? - **Feasibility** (1-5): How tractable is addressing this gap with available resources? - **Impact** (1-5): How much would closing this gap advance knowledge? - **Novelty** (1-5): How many existing studies already target this gap? Compute the **Gap Priority Index (GPI)** = (Severity × 0.3) + (Feasibility × 0.2) + (Impact × 0.3) + (Novelty × 0.2) Rank gaps by GPI descending. Only gaps scoring ≥ 3.0 should advance to Phase 3. **Quality Gate:** Must produce at least 3 gaps spanning at least 2 different gap types. No more than 40% of gaps should be of a single type. --- ### PHASE 3: QUESTION FORGE **Objective:** Transform validated gaps into precise, answerable, and novel research questions. #### Research Question Template ``` [UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS / HOW / WHY / TO WHAT EXTENT] does [INDEPENDENT VARIABLE / INTERVENTION / EXPOSURE] [affect / influence / moderate / mediate / predict] [DEPENDENT VARIABLE / OUTCOME] in [POPULATION / CONTEXT] given [THEORETICAL LENS / MECHANISM]? ``` #### Five-Dimensional Scoring | Dimension | Weight | Scoring Criteria | |-----------|--------|-----------------| | **Specificity** | 0.20 | 1=Vague topic area → 5=Precise variables, direction, and population specified | | **Answerability** | 0.20 | 1=Unanswerable with any method → 5=Clearly answerable with standard methods | | **Novelty** | 0.25 | 1=Already answered in literature → 5=No prior work addresses this | | **Impact** | 0.20 | 1=Niche interest only → 5=Field-altering implications | | **Groundedness** | 0.15 | 1=No theoretical basis → 5=Directly derived from established theory | **Research Question Quality Index (RQI)** = Σ(Dimension Score × Weight) **RQI Interpretation:** - 4.0–5.0: Excellent — proceed directly to Phase 4 - 3.0–3.9: Good — refine wording and re-score - 2.0–2.9: Marginal — return to Phase 2 and identify alternative gap - Below 2.0: Unviable — discard and restart #### Question Refinement Checklist - [ ] Variables are operationally definable - [ ] The question implies a falsifiable hypothesis - [ ] The population is specified and accessible - [ ] The scope is neither too broad nor too narrow - [ ] The question is not a disguised "does X exist?" (trivial) - [ ] The question does not presuppose its answer - [ ] Alternative explanations are acknowledged **Quality Gate:** Must produce at least 2 research questions per gap, select the highest RQI question, and verify it scores ≥ 3.5. --- ### PHASE 4: CONTRIBUTION MAPPING **Objective:** Forecast and articulate the specific contributions the proposed research will make across four domains. #### Contribution Domains **4.1 Theoretical Contribution** - New theory construction: Does this create a new theoretical framework? - Theory extension: Does this extend an existing theory to a new domain? - Theory refinement: Does this refine or qualify an existing theory? - Theory integration: Does this bridge two or more theoretical traditions? - Theory falsification: Does this test a theory's predictions under new conditions? **4.2 Methodological Contribution** - New measure/instrument development - Novel analytical approach or statistical technique - Improved research design for existing questions - New data collection methodology - Validation of existing methods in new contexts **4.3 Practical Contribution** - Direct intervention or policy implication - Clinical or organizational application - Stakeholder decision-making support - Tool or resource creation - Training or educational application **4.4 Field Impact** - Opens new research stream - Resolves standing debate - Shifts methodological norms - Bridges sub-disciplines - Influences funding priorities #### Contribution Statement Template ``` This study contributes to [FIELD] by [CONTRIBUTION TYPE] [WHAT IS CONTRIBUTED], which [HOW IT ADVANCES] [SPECIFIC AREA], thereby [BROADER IMPLICATION]. Unlike prior work that [WHAT OTHERS DID], this study [WHAT IS DIFFERENT AND BETTER]. ``` **Quality Gate:** The research must articulate at least one contribution in at least two domains. At least one contribution must be rated "substantial" (not merely incremental). --- ### PHASE 5: NOVELTY CERTIFICATE **Objective:** Quantify the novelty of the proposed research using the four-dimension scoring system and issue a formal novelty assessment. #### Scoring Dimensions (0–25 each) | Dimension | 21–25 | 16–20 | 11–15 | 6–10 | 0–5 | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|------|-----| | **First-of-its-kind** | No prior work in this space | One preliminary study exists | A few studies exist but are narrow | Several studies exist | Well-trodden territory | | **Methodological Innovation** | Entirely new method or paradigm | Significant adaptation of existing method | Moderate methodological refinement | Minor methodological tweak | Standard method, no innovation | | **Theoretical Advancement** | New theory or paradigm shift | Major theory extension | Moderate theory refinement | Minor theoretical nuance | No theoretical contribution | | **Empirical Impact** | Findings would reshape the field | Findings would influence multiple sub-fields | Findings would influence one sub-field | Findings would be cited but not transformative | Findings would have limited reach | #### Total Score Bands | Score Range | Classification | Description | |-------------|---------------|-------------| | 90–100 | **Paradigm Shift** | Field-altering work; will be cited for decades | | 75–89 | **Major Contribution** | Substantially advances understanding; high-impact publication likely | | 60–74 | **Solid Contribution** | Meaningful advance; suitable for strong specialty journal | | 45–59 | **Incremental** | Adds to literature but does not shift understanding | | 30–44 | **Marginal** | Limited novelty; significant revision needed | | 0–29 | **Redundant** | Insufficient novelty; do not pursue in current form | #### Novelty Certificate Format ``` ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ NOVELTY CERTIFICATE ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ Research Topic: [TOPIC] ║ ║ Date: [DATE] ║ ║ ║ ║ First-of-its-kind: [XX]/25 ║ ║ Methodological Innovation: [XX]/25 ║ ║ Theoretical Advancement: [XX]/25 ║ ║ Empirical Impact: [XX]/25 ║ ║ ───────────────────────────────── ║ ║ TOTAL NOVELTY SCORE: [XX]/100 ║ ║ Classification: [CLASSIFICATION] ║ ║ ║ ║ Key Strength: [STRONGEST DIMENSION] ║ ║ Key Weakness: [WEAKEST DIMENSION] ║ ║ Recommended Action: [PROCEED/REVISE/PIVOT] ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝ ``` **Quality Gate:** If the total novelty score is below 45, return to Phase 1 with expanded scope. If between 45–59, identify specific strategies from the novelty_calculator.md to strengthen the weakest dimensions before proceeding. --- ## OUTPUT FORMAT The Ideation Engine produces the following structured output: ```markdown # Ideation Engine Output ## 1. Field Cartography ### Frontier Streams [Numbered list with tags] ### Adjacency Opportunities [Numbered list with novelty potential] ### Contrarian Probes [Numbered list with challengeability assessment] ## 2. Gap Analysis [Gap Priority Matrix with GPI scores and rankings] ## 3. Research Questions [Top questions with RQI scores and refinement notes] ## 4. Contribution Map [Contributions by domain with substantiveness rating] ## 5. Novelty Certificate [Full certificate with scores and classification] ## 6. Recommended Next Steps [Suggested integration with Literature Command and Methodology Architect] ``` --- ## INTEGRATION NOTES ### With Literature Command (02_literature_command) - Feed identified gaps and questions into the Literature Command for systematic validation - Use the Deep Synthesis Engine to confirm gaps are genuine (not already filled) - Use Citation Strategy to identify which works to position against ### With Methodology Architect (03_methodology_architect) - Feed the top-ranked research question and contribution map to the Methodology Architect - The methodology must align with the gap type identified (e.g., Method Gaps require methodological innovation) - Pre-registration should reference the novelty certificate's dimensions ### With Writing Engine (06_writing_engine) - The Contribution Statement Template feeds directly into the Introduction and Discussion sections - The Novelty Certificate informs the "contributions" subsection - Gap typology terms should appear in the literature review framing ### With Review Simulator (07_review_simulator) - Feed the Novelty Certificate to the Review Simulator to predict reviewer objections about novelty claims - Use contrarian probes to anticipate reviewer skepticism --- ## USAGE EXAMPLES **Example 1: Exploring a new domain** ``` User: "I want to study AI-assisted medical diagnosis but I'm not sure where the real gaps are." → Execute all 5 phases with "AI-assisted medical diagnosis" as the target domain. ``` **Example 2: Refining an existing idea** ``` User: "I think there's a gap in how mindfulness interventions affect decision-making under uncertainty, but I'm not sure if it's novel enough." → Skip Phase 1, validate the gap in Phase 2, forge questions in Phase 3, and assess novelty in Phase 5. ``` **Example 3: Assessing novelty of a drafted proposal** ``` User: "Here's my research proposal [PASTED TEXT]. How novel is it?" → Execute Phase 5 only, extracting contributions from the proposal text. ``` --- ## VERSION HISTORY - v2.0.0 — Added five-dimensional RQI scoring, Gap Priority Index, Novelty Certificate format, integration protocols - v1.0.0 — Initial release with basic gap identification and question generation