# Researchstack Next Step

> Next-step triage skill for long-running research projects. Use when the user is mid-paper, mid-experiment, mid-writing, or generally stuck and needs a clear recommendation for which researchstack skill to use next, what not to do yet, and why.

- Skill: `lqf0624/researchstack-next-step-2` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lqf0624/researchstack-next-step-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lqf0624/researchstack-next-step-2/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: lqf0624 (https://skillmd.com/u/lqf0624)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lqf0624/researchstack-next-step-2

---


<!-- AUTO-GENERATED for codex from researchstack v0.3.0. Edit source SKILL.md files, then regenerate from the source checkout. -->

# Next Step

Read [../researchstack/references/workflow.md](../researchstack/references/workflow.md) and [../researchstack/references/memory.md](../researchstack/references/memory.md).

If the project is ongoing, inspect relevant project memory first via the `researchstack-learn` workflow. Pull in only high-signal context:

- current thesis,
- venue and deadline,
- known reviewer risks,
- experiment status,
- artifact or reproducibility constraints,
- writing or framing preferences,
- rejected directions.

This skill is a decision layer, not an execution skill.

The job is to answer:

> Given the current research state, what should the user do next?

Required output:

1. Current stage.
2. Blocking mismatch.
3. Recommended next skill, usually exactly one and at most two.
4. Why this step beats the alternatives.
5. What not to do yet.
6. A short follow-up chain after the recommended step.

Use [assets/next-step-decision-template.md](assets/next-step-decision-template.md).

Stage labels:

- research-program planning,
- idea formation,
- method formation,
- literature positioning,
- evidence building,
- experiment operations,
- artifact hardening,
- writing,
- layout and figure polish,
- submission triage,
- review and rebuttal.

Common blocking mismatches:

- a durable topic exists but paper candidates overlap,
- the topic is fixed but the proposed method collapses into prior work,
- topic novelty is being confused with method novelty,
- thesis exists but novelty is untested,
- thesis exists but related-work boundary is unclear,
- claims are broader than current evidence,
- results exist but artifact provenance is weak,
- figures exist but claim-to-evidence mapping is unclear,
- writing started before experiment design is locked,
- deadline pressure means scope should shrink rather than expand,
- reviewer risk is known but not answered by an experiment.

Decision rules:

- If the user needs several distinct papers under one topic, recommend `researchstack-program-map`.
- If the thesis is vague, recommend `researchstack-lab-intake` or `researchstack-idea-refine`.
- If the user only has an area, recommend `researchstack-idea-finder`.
- If the topic is fixed but the method is weak or already has close precedent, recommend `researchstack-method-synthesis`.
- If novelty is untested, recommend `researchstack-idea-review`.
- If the closest competitors are unclear, recommend `researchstack-literature-map`.
- If claims and evaluation are not aligned, recommend `researchstack-experiment-design`.
- If experiments are chaotic or results are hard to promote, recommend `researchstack-experiment-ops`.
- If numbers or figures cannot be traced, recommend `researchstack-artifact-audit`.
- If implementation could invalidate conclusions, recommend `researchstack-code-review`.
- If evidence is stable and the thesis is locked, recommend `researchstack-paper-write`.
- If writing exists but figures/tables/captions are weak, recommend `researchstack-figure-studio` or `researchstack-paper-layout`.
- If the user is near a deadline, recommend `researchstack-submission-gate`.
- If a draft is complete enough to attack, recommend `researchstack-peer-review`.
- If reviews exist, recommend `researchstack-rebuttal-coach`.

Be decisive. Do not list the whole skill catalog.

If there is not enough information to decide, ask for only the missing state needed to choose the next skill:

- current thesis,
- strongest current evidence,
- closest baseline or related paper,
- whether the topic must remain fixed,
- venue or deadline,
- what artifact/code/result exists now.

When a durable decision emerges, suggest recording it with `researchstack-learn`.