Research Idea Creator

Generate publishable research ideas for: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Given a broad research direction from the user, systematically generate, validate, and rank concrete research ideas. This skill composes with

/research-lit

/novelty-check

, and

/research-review

to form a complete idea discovery pipeline.

Constants

PILOT_MAX_HOURS = 2 — Skip any pilot estimated to take > 2 hours per GPU. Flag as "needs manual pilot".
PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS = 3 — Hard timeout: kill pilots exceeding 3 hours. Collect partial results if available.
MAX_PILOT_IDEAS = 3 — Pilot at most 3 ideas in parallel. Additional ideas are validated on paper only.
MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS = 8 — Total GPU budget for all pilots combined.
REVIEWER_MODEL =
gpt-5.4
— Model used via Codex MCP for brainstorming and review. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g.,
```
gpt-5.4
```
,
```
o3
```
,
```
gpt-4o
```
).

💡 Override via argument, e.g.,
/idea-creator "topic" — pilot budget: 4h per idea, 20h total
.

Workflow

Phase 1: Landscape Survey (5-10 min)

Map the research area to understand what exists and where the gaps are.

Scan local paper library first: Check
```
papers/
```
and
```
literature/
```
in the project directory for existing PDFs. Read first 3 pages of relevant papers to build a baseline understanding before searching online. This avoids re-discovering what the user already knows.
Search recent literature using WebSearch:
- Top venues in the last 2 years (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, etc.)
- Recent arXiv preprints (last 6 months)
- Use 5+ different query formulations
- Read abstracts and introductions of the top 10-15 papers
Build a landscape map:
- Group papers by sub-direction / approach
- Identify what has been tried and what hasn't
- Note recurring limitations mentioned in "Future Work" sections
- Flag any open problems explicitly stated by multiple papers
Identify structural gaps:
- Methods that work in domain A but haven't been tried in domain B
- Contradictory findings between papers (opportunity for resolution)
- Assumptions that everyone makes but nobody has tested
- Scaling regimes that haven't been explored
- Diagnostic questions that nobody has asked

Phase 2: Idea Generation (brainstorm with external LLM)

Use the external LLM via Codex MCP for divergent thinking:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: REVIEWER_MODEL
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a senior ML researcher brainstorming research ideas.

    Research direction: [user's direction]

    Here is the current landscape:
    [paste landscape map from Phase 1]

    Key gaps identified:
    [paste gaps from Phase 1]

    Generate 8-12 concrete research ideas. For each idea:
    1. One-sentence summary
    2. Core hypothesis (what you expect to find and why)
    3. Minimum viable experiment (what's the cheapest way to test this?)
    4. Expected contribution type: empirical finding / new method / theoretical result / diagnostic
    5. Risk level: LOW (likely works) / MEDIUM (50-50) / HIGH (speculative)
    6. Estimated effort: days / weeks / months

    Prioritize ideas that are:
    - Testable with moderate compute (8x RTX 3090 or less)
    - Likely to produce a clear positive OR negative result (both are publishable)
    - Not "apply X to Y" unless the application reveals genuinely surprising insights
    - Differentiated from the 10-15 papers above

    Be creative but grounded. A great idea is one where the answer matters regardless of which way it goes.

Save the threadId for follow-up.

Phase 3: First-Pass Filtering

For each generated idea, quickly evaluate:

Feasibility check: Can we actually run this experiment with available resources?
- Compute requirements (estimate GPU-hours)
- Data availability
- Implementation complexity
- Skip ideas requiring > 1 week of GPU time or unavailable datasets
Novelty quick-check: For each idea, do 2-3 targeted searches to see if it's already been done. Full
```
/novelty-check
```
comes later for survivors.
Impact estimation: Would a reviewer care about the result?
- "So what?" test: if the experiment succeeds, does it change how people think?
- Is the finding actionable or just interesting?

Eliminate ideas that fail any of these. Typically 8-12 ideas reduce to 4-6.

Phase 4: Deep Validation (for top ideas)

For each surviving idea, run a deeper evaluation:

Novelty check: Use the
```
/novelty-check
```
workflow (multi-source search + GPT-5.4 cross-verification) for each idea

Critical review: Use GPT-5.4 via

mcp__codex__codex-reply

(same thread):

Here are our top ideas after filtering:
[paste surviving ideas with novelty check results]

For each, play devil's advocate:
- What's the strongest objection a reviewer would raise?
- What's the most likely failure mode?
- How would you rank these for a top venue submission?
- Which 2-3 would you actually work on?

Combine rankings: Merge your assessment with GPT-5.4's ranking. Select top 2-3 ideas for pilot experiments.

Phase 5: Parallel Pilot Experiments (for top 2-3 ideas)

Before committing to a full research effort, run cheap pilot experiments to get empirical signal. This is the key differentiator from paper-only validation.

Design pilots: For each top idea, define the minimal experiment that would give a positive or negative signal:
- Single seed, small scale (e.g., small dataset subset, fewer epochs)
- Target: 30 min - PILOT_MAX_HOURS per pilot on 1 GPU
- Estimate GPU-hours BEFORE launching. If estimated time > PILOT_MAX_HOURS, reduce scale (fewer epochs, smaller subset) or flag as "needs manual pilot"
- Clear success metric defined upfront (e.g., "if metric improves by > 1%, signal is positive")

Deploy in parallel: Use

/run-experiment

to launch pilots on different GPUs simultaneously:

GPU 0: Pilot for Idea 1
GPU 1: Pilot for Idea 2
GPU 2: Pilot for Idea 3

Use

run_in_background: true

to launch all at once.

Collect results: Use
```
/monitor-experiment
```
to check progress. If any pilot exceeds PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS, kill it and collect partial results. Once all pilots complete (or timeout), compare:
- Which ideas showed positive signal?
- Which showed null/negative results? (eliminate or deprioritize)
- Any surprising findings that suggest a pivot?
- Total GPU-hours consumed (track against MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS budget)
Re-rank based on empirical evidence: Update the idea ranking using pilot results. An idea with strong pilot signal jumps ahead of a theoretically appealing but untested idea.

Note: Skip this phase if the ideas are purely theoretical or if no GPU is available. Flag skipped ideas as "needs pilot validation" in the report.

Phase 6: Output — Ranked Idea Report

Write a structured report to

IDEA_REPORT.md

in the project root:

markdown

# Research Idea Report

**Direction**: [user's research direction]
**Generated**: [date]
**Ideas evaluated**: X generated → Y survived filtering → Z piloted → W recommended

## Landscape Summary
[3-5 paragraphs on the current state of the field]

## Recommended Ideas (ranked)

### Idea 1: [title]
- **Hypothesis**: [one sentence]
- **Minimum experiment**: [concrete description]
- **Expected outcome**: [what success/failure looks like]
- **Novelty**: X/10 — closest work: [paper]
- **Feasibility**: [compute, data, implementation estimates]
- **Risk**: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH
- **Contribution type**: empirical / method / theory / diagnostic
- **Pilot result**: [POSITIVE: metric +X% / NEGATIVE: no signal / SKIPPED: needs GPU]
- **Reviewer's likely objection**: [strongest counterargument]
- **Why we should do this**: [1-2 sentences]

### Idea 2: [title]
...

## Eliminated Ideas (for reference)
| Idea | Reason eliminated |
|------|-------------------|
| ... | Already done by [paper] |
| ... | Requires > 1 week GPU time |
| ... | Result wouldn't be interesting either way |

## Pilot Experiment Results
| Idea | GPU | Time | Key Metric | Signal |
|------|-----|------|------------|--------|
| Idea 1 | GPU 0 | 45 min | +2.3% CE | POSITIVE |
| Idea 2 | GPU 1 | 30 min | -0.1% CE | NEGATIVE |
| Idea 3 | GPU 2 | 1.5 hr | +0.8% CE | WEAK POSITIVE |

## Suggested Execution Order
1. Start with Idea 1 (positive pilot signal, lowest risk)
2. Idea 3 as backup (weak signal, may need larger scale to confirm)
3. Idea 2 eliminated by pilot — negative result documented

## Next Steps
- [ ] Scale up Idea 1 to full experiment (multi-seed, full dataset)
- [ ] If confirmed, invoke /auto-review-loop for full iteration

Key Rules

The user provides a DIRECTION, not an idea. Your job is to generate the ideas.
Quantity first, quality second: brainstorm broadly, then filter ruthlessly.
A good negative result is just as publishable as a positive one. Prioritize ideas where the answer matters regardless of direction.
Don't fall in love with any idea before validating it. Be willing to kill ideas.
Always estimate compute cost. An idea that needs 1000 GPU-hours is not actionable for most researchers.
"Apply X to Y" is the lowest form of research idea. Push for deeper questions.
Include eliminated ideas in the report — they save future time by documenting dead ends.
If the user's direction is too broad, ask them to narrow it before proceeding.

Composing with Other Skills

After this skill produces the ranked report:

/idea-creator "direction"     → ranked ideas
/novelty-check "top idea"     → deep novelty verification (already done in Phase 4, but user can re-run)
/research-review "top idea"   → external critical feedback
implement                     → write code
/run-experiment               → deploy to GPU
/auto-review-loop             → iterate until submission-ready

idea-creator

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content