mcpField
R
research-idea-stress-test

research-idea-stress-test

github.com/jurgendnProductivity1159 installsUpdated 6w ago
Repository

About research-idea-stress-test

research-idea-stress-test is a research planning skill for evaluating whether an idea is meaningful, distinguishable from prior work, and worth pursuing. It structures cheap falsification tests, baseline selection, failure analysis, and a pursue, narrow, reframe, or drop recommendation.

Key features

  1. 01State the idea and contribution
  2. 02Identify assumptions and confounders
  3. 03Check related work and baselines
  4. 04Predict failure modes
  5. 05Define a cheap falsifying test
  6. 06Recommend a course of action

Use cases

  1. 01Screening an early research idea
  2. 02Choosing a fair baseline
  3. 03Planning a low-cost falsification test
  4. 04Deciding whether to narrow or drop a project

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/jurgendn/agent-skills --skill research-idea-stress-test

After installing, type/research-idea-stress-testin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/stress-test-checklist.md

Details

From the project README

Research Idea Stress Test

Assume the idea is false until it survives cheap attacks. The goal is not to prove the idea correct; it is to decide whether it is meaningful, distinguishable, and worth more time.

For a detailed stress-test question bank, read references/stress-test-checklist.md.

Workflow

  1. State the core idea in one sentence.
  2. Separate method, hypothesis, and contribution.
  3. List what must be true for the idea to matter.
  4. Identify nearest existing work and baselines.
  5. Detect novelty illusions.
  6. Identify hidden advantages and confounders.
  7. Predict failure modes.
  8. Define the cheapest falsifying test.
  9. Define the strongest fair baseline.
  10. Define minimal success criteria.
  11. State what evidence would change your mind.
  12. Recommend pursue, narrow, reframe, or drop.

Rules

  • Do not protect the idea from the strongest objection.
  • Do not confuse novelty of phrasing with novelty of contribution.
  • Do not scale experiments before a cheap falsifier has run.
  • If the decisive test is unavailable, say what proxy would reduce uncertainty.
  • If nearest prior work is unknown, route to literature-triangulation.

Output

Return:

  • core idea;
  • claimed contribution;
  • why it might work;
  • why it might fail;
  • hidden assumptions;
  • nearest baselines / related work;
  • cheapest decisive experiment;
  • evidence that would change your mind;
  • recommendation: pursue / narrow / reframe / drop.

Comments

Markdown supported