Idea Discovery

Workflow 1: Idea Discovery Pipeline

Orchestrate a complete idea discovery workflow for: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

This skill chains four sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:

/research-lit → /idea-creator → /novelty-check → /research-review
  (survey)      (brainstorm)    (verify novel)    (critical feedback)

Each phase builds on the previous one's output. The final deliverable is a validated IDEA_REPORT.md with ranked ideas, pilot results, and a suggested execution plan.

Constants

• PILOT_MAX_HOURS = 2 — Skip any pilot experiment estimated to take > 2 hours per GPU. Flag as "needs manual pilot" in the report.
• PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS = 3 — Hard timeout: kill any running pilot that exceeds 3 hours. Collect partial results if available.
• MAX_PILOT_IDEAS = 3 — Run pilots for at most 3 top ideas in parallel. Additional ideas are validated on paper only.
• MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS = 8 — Total GPU budget across all pilots. If exceeded, skip remaining pilots and note in report.
• AUTO_PROCEED = true — If user doesn't respond at a checkpoint, automatically proceed with the best option after presenting results. Set to false to always wait for explicit user confirmation.
• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4 — Model used via Codex MCP. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., gpt-5.4, o3, gpt-4o). Passed to sub-skills.

💡 These are defaults. Override by telling the skill, e.g., /idea-discovery "topic" — pilot budget: 4h per idea, 20h total or /idea-discovery "topic" — wait for my approval at each step.

Pipeline

Phase 1: Literature Survey

Invoke /research-lit to map the research landscape:

/research-lit "$ARGUMENTS"

What this does:

• Search arXiv, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar for recent papers
• Build a landscape map: sub-directions, approaches, open problems
• Identify structural gaps and recurring limitations
• Output a literature summary (saved to working notes)

🚦 Checkpoint: Present the landscape summary to the user. Ask:

📚 Literature survey complete. Here's what I found:
- [key findings, gaps, open problems]

Does this match your understanding? Should I adjust the scope before generating ideas?
(If no response, I'll proceed with the top-ranked direction.)

• User approves (or no response + AUTO_PROCEED=true) → proceed to Phase 2 with best direction.
• User requests changes (e.g., "focus more on X", "ignore Y", "too broad") → refine the search with updated queries, re-run /research-lit with adjusted scope, and present again. Repeat until the user is satisfied.

Phase 2: Idea Generation + Filtering + Pilots

Invoke /idea-creator with the landscape context:

/idea-creator "$ARGUMENTS"

What this does:

• Brainstorm 8-12 concrete ideas via GPT-5.4 xhigh
• Filter by feasibility, compute cost, quick novelty search
• Deep validate top ideas (full novelty check + devil's advocate)
• Run parallel pilot experiments on available GPUs (top 2-3 ideas)
• Rank by empirical signal
• Output IDEA_REPORT.md

🚦 Checkpoint: Present IDEA_REPORT.md ranked ideas to the user. Ask:

💡 Generated X ideas, filtered to Y, piloted Z. Top results:

1. [Idea 1] — Pilot: POSITIVE (+X%)
2. [Idea 2] — Pilot: WEAK POSITIVE (+Y%)
3. [Idea 3] — Pilot: NEGATIVE, eliminated

Which ideas should I validate further? Or should I regenerate with different constraints?
(If no response, I'll proceed with the top-ranked ideas.)

• User picks ideas (or no response + AUTO_PROCEED=true) → proceed to Phase 3 with top-ranked ideas.
• User unhappy with all ideas → collect feedback ("what's missing?", "what direction do you prefer?"), update the prompt with user's constraints, and re-run Phase 2 (idea generation). Repeat until the user selects at least 1 idea.
• User wants to adjust scope → go back to Phase 1 with refined direction.

Phase 3: Deep Novelty Verification

For each top idea (positive pilot signal), run a thorough novelty check:

/novelty-check "[top idea 1 description]"
/novelty-check "[top idea 2 description]"

What this does:

• Multi-source literature search (arXiv, Scholar, Semantic Scholar)
• Cross-verify with GPT-5.4 xhigh
• Check for concurrent work (last 3-6 months)
• Identify closest existing work and differentiation points

Update IDEA_REPORT.md with deep novelty results. Eliminate any idea that turns out to be already published.

Phase 4: External Critical Review

For the surviving top idea(s), get brutal feedback:

/research-review "[top idea with hypothesis + pilot results]"

What this does:

• GPT-5.4 xhigh acts as a senior reviewer (NeurIPS/ICML level)
• Scores the idea, identifies weaknesses, suggests minimum viable improvements
• Provides concrete feedback on experimental design

Update IDEA_REPORT.md with reviewer feedback and revised plan.

Phase 5: Final Report

Finalize IDEA_REPORT.md with all accumulated information:

# Idea Discovery Report

**Direction**: $ARGUMENTS
**Date**: [today]
**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator → novelty-check → research-review

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: best idea, key evidence, recommended next step]

## Literature Landscape
[from Phase 1]

## Ranked Ideas
[from Phase 2, updated with Phase 3-4 results]

### 🏆 Idea 1: [title] — RECOMMENDED
- Pilot: POSITIVE (+X%)
- Novelty: CONFIRMED (closest: [paper], differentiation: [what's different])
- Reviewer score: X/10
- Next step: implement full experiment → /auto-review-loop

### Idea 2: [title] — BACKUP
...

## Eliminated Ideas
[ideas killed at each phase, with reasons]

## Next Steps
- [ ] Implement Idea 1
- [ ] /run-experiment to deploy full-scale experiments
- [ ] /auto-review-loop to iterate until submission-ready
- [ ] Or invoke /research-pipeline for the complete end-to-end flow

Key Rules

• Don't skip phases. Each phase filters and validates — skipping leads to wasted effort later.
• Checkpoint between phases. Briefly summarize what was found before moving on.
• Kill ideas early. It's better to kill 10 bad ideas in Phase 3 than to implement one and fail.
• Empirical signal > theoretical appeal. An idea with a positive pilot outranks a "sounds great" idea without evidence.
• Document everything. Dead ends are just as valuable as successes for future reference.
• Be honest with the reviewer. Include negative results and failed pilots in the review prompt.
• Feishu notifications are optional. If ~/.claude/feishu.json exists, send checkpoint at each phase transition and pipeline_done at final report. If absent/off, skip silently.

Composing with Workflow 2

After this pipeline produces a validated top idea:

/idea-discovery "direction"         ← you are here (Workflow 1)
implement                           ← write code for the top idea
/run-experiment                     ← deploy full-scale experiments
/auto-review-loop "top idea"        ← Workflow 2: iterate until submission-ready

Or use /research-pipeline for the full end-to-end flow.