idea-creator

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 = 4 — Skip any pilot estimated to take > 4 hours per GPU. Flag as "needs manual pilot".
• PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS = 6 — Hard timeout: kill pilots exceeding 6 hours. Collect partial results if available.
• MAX_PILOT_IDEAS = 6 — Pilot at most 6 ideas in parallel. Additional ideas are validated on paper only.
• MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS = 10 — Total GPU budget for all pilots combined.
• REVIEWER_BACKEND = llm-chat — External LLM reviewer via llm-chat MCP for brainstorming (Phase 2 idea generation) and review (Phase 4 devil's-advocate critique). Model defers to LLM_MODEL env. Always ask the external reviewer for strict, high-rigor feedback. Override with — reviewer: oracle-pro via Oracle MCP.
• OUTPUT_DIR = idea-stage/ — All idea-stage outputs go here. Create the directory if it doesn't exist.

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

Workflow

Phase 1: Load Landscape + Banlist (produced by /research-lit)

Division of labor. /research-lit is the canonical owner of the landscape and banlist. Its Step 0 reads any existing prior banlist and its Step 5 synthesizes everything into idea-stage/LANDSCAPE.md — paper table + 3-5 paragraph narrative + structural gaps + a ## 5. Banlist — Failed Ideas section. This skill does not survey the literature; it consumes that file.

Path A — auto-claim chain (the normal path). If idea-stage/LANDSCAPE.md exists non-empty, Read it. Treat it as the canonical landscape, and treat its ## 5. Banlist — Failed Ideas section as ideas NOT to regenerate. Do not re-survey. This is the explicit auditable source and avoids drift if an in-context survey would later be summarized away in a long session.

Path B — standalone (LANDSCAPE.md absent). Run /research-lit "$ARGUMENTS" first — it owns the survey and banlist — then Read the idea-stage/LANDSCAPE.md it writes.

Log: [phase-1] loaded landscape + banlist from idea-stage/LANDSCAPE.md.

Phase 2: Idea Generation (brainstorm with external LLM)

Use the external LLM via llm-chat MCP for divergent thinking. The landscape and the banlist were loaded in Phase 1 from idea-stage/LANDSCAPE.md — paste both into the brainstorm prompt below. The external model is stateless and sees only what you paste, so the banlist MUST be included or it will re-propose already-failed ideas. Always ask the external reviewer for strict, high-rigor feedback.

mcp__llm-chat__chat:
  prompt: |
    You are a senior ML researcher brainstorming research ideas.

    Research direction: [user's direction]

    Here is the current landscape:
    [paste structured paper table + landscape narrative from LANDSCAPE.md (Phase 1)]

    Key gaps identified:
    [paste structural gaps from LANDSCAPE.md (Phase 1)]

    Already-tried ideas that FAILED — do NOT regenerate these or close variants:
    [paste the "## 5. Banlist — Failed Ideas" section from LANDSCAPE.md (Phase 1); write "(none — no prior banlist)" if empty]

    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 papers in the landscape, and NOT in the failed-ideas banlist above

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

Save the full raw response verbatim. llm-chat is stateless — follow-up rounds must include a verbatim summary of this response in the new prompt.

Phase 3: First-Pass Filtering

For each generated idea, quickly evaluate:

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. Novelty check: Use the /novelty-check workflow (multi-source search + external LLM cross-verification) for each idea

2. Critical review: Use the external reviewer via mcp__llm-chat__chat (include Phase 2's verbatim ideas response in the prompt since llm-chat is stateless):

   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?
   

3. Combine rankings: Merge your assessment with the external reviewer'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.

1. 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")

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md:

# 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]
- **Impact**: X/10 — why it matters: [importance + who would care]
- **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-iteration-loop for full iteration

Output Protocols

Follow these shared protocols for all output files:

• Output Versioning Protocol — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
• Output Manifest Protocol — log every output to MANIFEST.md
• Output Language Protocol — respect the project's language setting

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.

• 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 (e.g., "NLP", "computer vision", "reinforcement learning"), STOP and ask them to narrow it. A good direction is 1-2 sentences specifying the problem, domain, and constraint — e.g., "factorized gap in discrete diffusion LMs" or "sample efficiency of offline RL with image observations". Without sufficient specificity, generated ideas will be too vague to run experiments on.

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-iteration-loop             → iterate until submission-ready

Review Tracing

After each mcp__llm-chat__chat reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md. Write files directly to .mechanist/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).