data-finder
Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Find and assess datasets for a research question. Explorer agents search data source categories; Explorer-Critic stress-tests candidates and produces ranked list with feasibility grades. Use when identifying or evaluating data sources, not searching papers or running analysis.
In this repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- data-analysisSkill
- lit-reviewSkill
- new-projectSkill
- proofreadSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- research-setupSkill
- review-paperSkill
- review-rSkill
- revise-paperSkill
- session-logSkill
- validate-bibSkill
- write-paperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 28
Read references/domain-profile.md if it exists — extract the Common Datasets section (domain-specific datasets to check first).
- Very specific: line 30
If no research spec exists, extract the variables and strategy from $ARGUMENTS directly.
- Distinctive: line 74
After both Explorer agents complete, dispatch the Explorer-Critic with the full combined dataset list.
- Distinctive: line 99
After the Explorer-Critic completes, compile the final ranked report:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Data Finder
Find and assess datasets for your research question. Two Explorer agents search in parallel across data source categories; an Explorer-Critic then stress-tests each candidate against the research design.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — a topic, or from spec to read the research question from quality_reports/.
Step 1: Read Research Context
- Find the most recent
quality_reports/project_spec_*.mdorquality_reports/specs/*.md— extract:- Research question
- Empirical strategy (DiD, RDD, IV, etc.)
- Treatment variable (what varies)
- Outcome variable (what we measure)
- Controls needed
- Time period of interest
- Geography (national, state, county, individual)
- Unit of observation (individual, household, firm, establishment)
- Read
references/domain-profile.mdif it exists — extract the Common Datasets section (domain-specific datasets to check first). - If no research spec exists, extract the variables and strategy from
$ARGUMENTSdirectly. If the request is vague, ask: "What are the treatment and outcome variables, and what empirical strategy did you have in mind?"
Step 2: Dispatch Two Explorer Agents in Parallel
Split the source categories between two Explorer agents to parallelize the search.
Explorer A — Institutional Data:
Task prompt: "You are an Explorer agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].
Domain datasets (check first): [list from domain-profile if available].
Your source categories to search:
1. Public microdata (CPS, ACS, NHIS, MEPS, SIPP, QWI)
2. Administrative data (Medicare/Medicaid, IRS, SSA, vital statistics, court records)
3. Survey panels (PSID, HRS, Add Health, NLSY97/79, BHPS/UKHLS)
For each dataset found, produce the full Explorer report format.
Follow the Explorer agent instructions."Explorer B — Broader and Alternative Sources:
Task prompt: "You are an Explorer agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].
Domain datasets (check first): [list from domain-profile if available].
Your source categories to search:
1. International data (World Bank, OECD, Eurostat, IMF, IPUMS International)
2. Novel/alternative (satellite, web scraping, proprietary, RCT registries)
3. Any field-specific datasets not covered by Explorer A
For each dataset found, produce the full Explorer report format.
Follow the Explorer agent instructions."Step 3: Dispatch Explorer-Critic
After both Explorer agents complete, dispatch the Explorer-Critic with the full combined dataset list.
Task prompt: "You are an Explorer-Critic agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].
Here is the combined dataset list from the Explorer agents:
[paste all Explorer findings]
Apply the 5-point critique to each dataset:
1. Measurement validity
2. Sample selection
3. External validity
4. Identification compatibility
5. Known issues
Produce adjusted feasibility grades and deal-breaker flags.
Follow the Explorer-Critic agent instructions."Step 4: Produce Ranked Output
After the Explorer-Critic completes, compile the final ranked report:
- Sort datasets by adjusted feasibility grade (A first, then B, then C, then D).
- Within each grade, sort by identification compatibility score (highest first).
- Separate out deal-breaker datasets into the rejection table.
Step 5: Save Report
Save to quality_reports/data_exploration_[sanitized_topic].md:
# Data Exploration: [Topic]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Research question:** [one sentence]
**Empirical strategy:** [method]
**Variables sought:** Treatment = [X], Outcome = [Y], Controls = [list]
## Top Candidates (Grade A–B)
### 1. [Dataset Name] — Grade: A/B
**Provider:** [Name] | **Access:** [Public/Restricted/etc.] | **URL:** [link]
**Coverage:** [time period] | [geography] | [unit of observation] | N ≈ [size]
**Key Variables:**
- Treatment proxy: [variable]
- Outcome: [variable]
- Controls available: [list]
**Explorer-Critic Assessment:**
- Measurement validity: [1-2 sentences]
- Sample selection: [1-2 sentences]
- External validity: [1-2 sentences]
- Identification compatibility: [focused on the proposed strategy]
- Known issues: [specific documented problems]
**Bottom line:** [1-2 sentences — viable and under what conditions]
[Repeat for all A and B grade datasets]
## Accessible With Effort (Grade C)
[Brief summaries — name, access path, main limitation, why C not B]
## Rejection Table
| Dataset | Reason for Rejection | Deal-breaker? |
|---------|---------------------|---------------|
| [Name] | [Explorer-Critic finding] | YES/NO |
## Recommended Path Forward
1. **Best dataset:** [Name] — [one sentence why]
2. **Fallback if [best] unavailable:** [Name] — [why it's second choice]
3. **Access path for [best]:** [download URL, application URL, IRB requirements, restricted-data steps]
### Ingest Recipe for [best]
A copy-pasteable load-and-clean block for the recommended dataset. Tailor to whether the source is a flat file, an API/portal, or a non-tabular source (PDF, scraped HTML).
**R:**
```r
# Download (or login + download — note in a comment if manual)
library(tidyverse)
df <- readr::read_csv("data/raw/[file].csv") # or haven::read_dta, arrow::read_parquet
df_clean <- df %>%
rename(...) %>%
mutate(...) %>%
filter(...)
arrow::write_parquet(df_clean, "data/processed/[name].parquet")Python:
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv("data/raw/[file].csv") # or pd.read_stata, pd.read_parquet
df_clean = (
df.rename(columns={...})
.assign(...)
.query("...")
)
df_clean.to_parquet("data/processed/[name].parquet")If the source is a PDF, scraped HTML page, or government portal API, replace the load step with the appropriate extraction recipe — tabulizer/pdftools/rvest/tidycensus/fredr in R, or pdfplumber/camelot/pandas.read_html/census/fredapi in Python. The /data-analysis skill's Phase 0.5 documents the full set; cross-reference it if extraction is non-trivial.
Known traps for [best]
- [E.g., FIPS codes read as integers — drop leading zeros]
- [E.g., Survey weights required —
srvyr::as_survey_design()] - [E.g., Top-coding on income — note threshold]
Next Steps
/data-analysis [dataset]— begin analysis with the recommended dataset (Phase 0.5 handles non-tabular sources; Phase 3.5 runs design-specific identification diagnostics)/lit-review [topic]— check if papers in the literature use these datasets (helps validate choice)
## Important
- **Identification compatibility is the most important criterion.** A perfectly accessible dataset that can't support the proposed empirical strategy is useless. The Explorer-Critic's grade on this dimension should drive the recommendation.
- **Access level affects timeline.** An FSRDC dataset may take 1-2 years to access. A public download can start today. Make this tradeoff explicit.
- **Don't reject C-grade datasets outright.** A FSRDC dataset with perfect identification fit may be the right choice for a dissertation. Present the access path clearly.Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

