agentleFS
IamK77IamK77/Skill/skills/inquiry/prospect/SKILL.md

prospect

Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Find research possibilities by connecting tensions, absences, and neighbouring fields. Use for open-ended question generation rather than literature scoring or forced project selection.

8 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask where the celebrated result should stop working.

    line 32
  2. Distinctive:

    Read selectively when a thread needs another perspective or a concrete technique.

    line 50

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md
<!-- Copyright 2026 IamK77 — Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See ./LICENSE and ./NOTICE · https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 -->

prospect

Find research possibilities by connecting tensions, absences, and neighbouring fields. Use for open-ended question generation rather than literature scoring or forced project selection.

Starting point

A research question can begin where two descriptions of the world fail to fit together. Read for friction and strange correspondences, not only for a gap to claim.

Bring a question, fragment, reference, or tension. Follow whichever association becomes useful; these invitations are not a sequence to complete. Speculation should remain distinguishable from an observed fact.

Thought experiments

Cross two vocabularies

Take a mechanism from one field and a stubborn observation from another. Translate the mechanism twice: once literally, once structurally. What new question survives the translation?

Reverse the success story

Ask where the celebrated result should stop working. Imagine that boundary is the subject rather than an embarrassment. What phenomenon becomes visible there?

Follow the omitted actor

Retell a paper from the perspective of the excluded population, unmeasured resource, failed instance, or maintainer. Let the omission suggest possibilities before ranking them.

A possible turn

A scheduling paper treats setup cost as noise. Thinking of ecological succession makes setup history a state variable, suggesting path-dependent schedules. Thinking of auction markets instead suggests pricing switching costs. Either may be interesting before either is tractable.

Leave the space open

Offer a few genuinely different possibilities, a sketch, an analogy, or a sharper question when useful. Do not turn every prompt into a scored diagnostic, a completion gate, or a demand for an action plan. The human may choose a direction, combine them, or leave the question open.

Crucible can elaborate a promising mechanism. Ledger is appropriate only when the human chooses a question worth committing experimental resources to.

Optional references

Read selectively when a thread needs another perspective or a concrete technique. The notes supply possibilities, examples, and limits; none is a prerequisite or a requirement to close the exploration.

  • Contrast questions without prematurely closing them
  • Places where new questions can emerge
  • A literature map that can generate questions
  • Reading for friction and possibility

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.