industrial-ai-research
Skill4 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Industrial AI literature research with mandatory intake questions, venue-aware source prioritization, structured report outputs, and survey draft generation. Use when the user needs up-to-date research on predictive maintenance, intelligent scheduling, industrial anomaly detection, smart manufacturing, cyber-physical systems, edge AI for automation, or crossover robotics-for-industry topics. Also trigger for adjacent terms: "digital twin", "industrial IoT", "Industry 4.0", "manufacturing AI", "factory automation", "process optimization", or "survey draft" in industrial contexts.
In this repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adaptSkill
- animateSkill
- arrangeSkill
- auditSkill
- bolderSkill
- clarifySkill
- code-refactorSkill
- colorizeSkill
- critiqueSkill
- delightSkill
- distillSkill
- extractSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gitlab-integrationSkill
- git-operationsSkill
- hardenSkill
- latex-paper-enSkill
- latex-thesis-zhSkill
- mermaid-diagramsSkill
- normalizeSkill
- onboardSkill
- optimizeSkill
- overdriveSkill
- paper-auditSkill
- polishSkill
- pydanticSkill
- python-best-practicesSkill
- python-docsSkill
- pytorch-lightningSkill
- quieterSkill
- remotion-best-practicesSkill
- research-paper-writingSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- teach-impeccableSkill
- typesetSkill
- typst-paperSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
34 rules. About 0 are common, 25 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈25
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Run a lean, source-aware research workflow for Industrial AI.
- Distinctive: line 28
Use this skill when the user wants to:
- Distinctive: line 48
Never fabricate paper metadata (title, authors, venue, year, DOI)
- Distinctive: line 49
Never present preprints as peer-reviewed publications
- Distinctive: line 50
Never start synthesis before intake questions are answered
- Distinctive: line 51
Never suppress contradictions or conflicting evidence
- Distinctive: line 52
Never use Tier 4 sources (blogs, press releases) as primary evidence
- Very specific: line 56
Ask the user the four intake questions (see references/question-flow.md) before starting any search or synthesis.
- Distinctive: line 57
Keep the skill workflow in English only, even when the requested report language is not English.
- Distinctive: line 58
Prefer recent arXiv plus top IEEE and automation venues over generic web articles.
- Distinctive: line 59
Default to the last 3 years, but keep seminal older work when it is still necessary for context.
- Very specific: line 65
Always start by asking the four intake questions defined in references/question-flow.md:
- Very specific: line 71
If the user does not choose, default to last 3 years and the subdomain implied by their prompt.
- Very specific: line 79
If any intake item is missing, ask the mandatory questions from references/question-flow.md before you search.
- Distinctive: line 83
Read these files before searching:
- Distinctive: line 96
When the user asks for the latest work, prefer:
- Distinctive: line 118
Prefer official venue pages, arXiv recent listings, IEEE Xplore landing pages, and publisher or conference pages.
- Distinctive: line 123
Check venue quality, publication type, year, and relevance.
- Distinctive: line 124
Remove weak matches, duplicates, and generic blog-style sources.
- Distinctive: line 131
Run a contrarian pass: what would challenge the dominant conclusion?
- Very specific: line 135
Use the stable report structure from references/report-modes.md.
- Distinctive: line 137
Every final report must include:
- Very specific: line 146
When the user selects survey-draft, Phases 1–4 (Scope, Search Plan, Source Collection, Verification) execute as normal, then S1–S4 replace …
- Distinctive: line 155
CHECKPOINT: do not enter S2 until the user approves the outline.
- Distinctive: line 170
Run the self-check gate on every H3 (depth, citation scope, tone).
- Distinctive: line 178
Run cross-section consistency checks.
- Very specific: line 180
If the user requested LaTeX output, delegate to latex-paper-en.
- Very specific: line 184
Read references/report-modes.md and follow the selected mode exactly.
- Distinctive: line 203
If sources are sparse, inaccessible, or off-scope, say so directly and report the exact fallback you used.
- Very specific: line 217
Read references/quality-checklist.md before finalizing.
- Distinctive: line 221
no venue-blind source mixing
- Distinctive: line 223
no synthesized report before intake questions are answered
- Distinctive: line 224
no generic "latest research says" language without source-backed evidence
- Distinctive: line 270
If the user needs those, state the boundary and continue with the closest supported research mode.
≈ “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
Industrial AI Research
Run a lean, source-aware research workflow for Industrial AI.
Capability Summary
- Structured literature research for Industrial AI and automation topics
- Mandatory four-question intake before any search or synthesis
- Venue-aware source prioritization (arXiv, IEEE, automation venues)
- Four deliverable modes: research-brief, literature-map, venue-ranked survey, research-gap memo
- Contrarian synthesis pass to surface contradictions and under-explored gaps
- Survey draft generation: outline-first writing with per-section evidence packs and optional LaTeX export
Triggering
Use this skill when the user wants to:
- Survey Industrial AI literature on a specific subtopic
- Compare papers across venues or methods within Industrial AI
- Identify research gaps in predictive maintenance, scheduling, anomaly detection, or smart manufacturing
- Produce a structured research report with source-backed evidence
- Draft a structured survey on an Industrial AI subtopic
- Produce a survey manuscript with taxonomy, evidence packs, and section-by-section writing
Do Not Use
- Writing or compiling LaTeX/Typst papers (use
latex-paper-en,latex-thesis-zh, ortypst-paper). Note: survey-draft mode produces Markdown by default; for LaTeX output, it delegates final formatting tolatex-paper-en. - Auditing paper quality or formatting (use
paper-audit) - Systematic reviews or meta-analyses requiring IRB or clinical ethics
- Topics outside the Industrial AI and automation domain
- Auditing an existing paper's quality or formatting (use
paper-audit) - Editing LaTeX/Typst source files (use the appropriate writing skill)
Safety Boundaries
- Never fabricate paper metadata (title, authors, venue, year, DOI)
- Never present preprints as peer-reviewed publications
- Never start synthesis before intake questions are answered
- Never suppress contradictions or conflicting evidence
- Never use Tier 4 sources (blogs, press releases) as primary evidence
Core Rules
- Ask the user the four intake questions (see
references/question-flow.md) before starting any search or synthesis. - Keep the skill workflow in English only, even when the requested report language is not English.
- Prefer recent arXiv plus top IEEE and automation venues over generic web articles.
- Default to the last 3 years, but keep seminal older work when it is still necessary for context.
- Cite every substantive claim and separate verified evidence from inference.
- In survey-draft mode, complete all structure and evidence phases before generating any prose. Structure phases produce YAML/tables only.
Intake Contract
Always start by asking the four intake questions defined in references/question-flow.md:
- Report language (English / Simplified Chinese / Bilingual summary)
- Deliverable mode (research-brief / literature-map / venue-ranked survey / research-gap memo / survey-draft)
- Time window (last 12 months / last 3 years / last 5 years / custom)
- Industrial AI emphasis (predictive maintenance / intelligent scheduling / industrial anomaly detection / smart manufacturing and process optimization / CPS and edge AI / robotics crossover)
If the user does not choose, default to last 3 years and the subdomain implied by their prompt.
Required Inputs
- A concrete Industrial AI topic or question.
- User choices for report language, deliverable mode, time window, and domain emphasis.
- Optional preferences on peer-reviewed-only filtering, benchmarks vs deployment evidence, or desired output format.
If any intake item is missing, ask the mandatory questions from references/question-flow.md before you search.
Source Strategy
Read these files before searching:
references/source-priority.mdreferences/venue-map.md
Primary sources:
- arXiv:
eess.SY,cs.AI - IEEE and automation anchors:
T-ASE,CASE
Supporting crossover sources:
- arXiv:
cs.RO,cs.LG - IEEE robotics venues:
ICRA,IROS,RA-L,T-RO - Adjacent industrial and control venues listed in
references/venue-map.md
When the user asks for the latest work, prefer:
- arXiv recent streams for rapid updates
- top IEEE and automation venues for stronger publication filtering
- secondary crossover venues only when they materially improve coverage
Workflow
Phase 1. Scope
- Rewrite the request as a precise Industrial AI research objective.
- Lock the report language, deliverable mode, time window, and domain emphasis.
- State explicit in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries.
Phase 2. Search Plan
- Build venue buckets and keyword groups from
references/source-priority.md. - Separate primary sources from secondary crossover sources.
- State the recency policy and any seminal-paper exceptions.
Phase 3. Source Collection
- Gather papers from the prioritized source buckets.
- Prefer official venue pages, arXiv recent listings, IEEE Xplore landing pages, and publisher or conference pages.
- Record why each paper was included.
Phase 4. Verification and Triage
- Check venue quality, publication type, year, and relevance.
- Remove weak matches, duplicates, and generic blog-style sources.
- Mark unreviewed preprints as preprints.
Phase 5. Synthesis
- Cluster the shortlisted papers by problem, method, dataset, deployment setting, and evaluation style.
- Surface trends, gaps, contradictions, and under-explored opportunities.
- Run a contrarian pass: what would challenge the dominant conclusion?
Phase 6. Report Assembly
Use the stable report structure from references/report-modes.md.
Every final report must include:
- search scope
- source buckets by venue
- shortlisted papers
- synthesis of trends and gaps
- recommended next reading or next experiments
Survey-Draft Workflow (Phases S1–S4)
When the user selects survey-draft, Phases 1–4 (Scope, Search Plan, Source Collection, Verification) execute as normal, then S1–S4 replace the original Phases 5–6.
Phase S1. Outline Building
Read references/modules/SURVEY_OUTLINE.md.
- Extract a taxonomy from the verified literature.
- Build the section skeleton as structured YAML.
- Present the outline to the user for approval.
- CHECKPOINT: do not enter S2 until the user approves the outline.
Phase S2. Evidence Pack Assembly
Read references/modules/SURVEY_EVIDENCE.md.
- Assemble an evidence pack for every H3 subsection.
- Lock the citation scope for each subsection.
- Produce structured evidence bundles (no prose).
Phase S3. Section-by-Section Writing
Read references/modules/SURVEY_WRITER.md.
- Draft each H3 independently, grounded in its evidence pack.
- Run the self-check gate on every H3 (depth, citation scope, tone).
- Produce one Markdown file per H2 section.
Phase S4. Merge and Quality Gate
Read references/modules/SURVEY_MERGE.md.
- Merge all section drafts into a single document.
- Run cross-section consistency checks.
- Apply the final quality checklist.
- If the user requested LaTeX output, delegate to
latex-paper-en.
Deliverable Modes
Read references/report-modes.md and follow the selected mode exactly.
research-brief: short, decision-ready overviewliterature-map: thematic map across methods and subproblemsvenue-ranked survey: grouped by source quality and venue tierresearch-gap memo: open problems, design space, and next-step opportunitiessurvey-draft: taxonomy-driven survey manuscript with outline-first writing and optional LaTeX export
Output Contract
- State the locked intake choices and any defaults you applied before synthesis.
- Distinguish verified evidence from inference in every deliverable.
- Label preprints explicitly as preprints.
- For non-survey modes, produce a structured report that includes: scope, source buckets, shortlisted papers, synthesis, and next reading or next experiments.
- For
survey-draft, keep stage outputs format-specific:- S1: YAML outline only
- S2: evidence packs or tables only
- S3: section Markdown drafts grounded in the evidence packs
- S4: merged Markdown survey with cross-section consistency notes
- If sources are sparse, inaccessible, or off-scope, say so directly and report the exact fallback you used.
Module Router
| Module | Use when | Primary action | Read next |
research | User selects any of the 4 report modes | Execute Phase 1–6 workflow | references/report-modes.md |
survey-outline | User selects survey-draft (Phase S1) | Build taxonomy and section skeleton | references/modules/SURVEY_OUTLINE.md |
survey-evidence | Outline approved by user (Phase S2) | Assemble per-H3 evidence packs | references/modules/SURVEY_EVIDENCE.md |
survey-write | Evidence packs complete (Phase S3) | Draft prose per H3 | references/modules/SURVEY_WRITER.md |
survey-merge | All sections complete (Phase S4) | Merge, quality gate, optional LaTeX handoff | references/modules/SURVEY_MERGE.md |
Quality Bar
Read references/quality-checklist.md before finalizing.
Non-negotiable standards:
- no unsupported claims
- no venue-blind source mixing
- no hiding contradictions
- no synthesized report before intake questions are answered
- no generic "latest research says" language without source-backed evidence
Error Handling
- Zero results: Broaden keywords, relax the time window by one tier, and try adjacent venues. If still empty, report the negative result with the exact queries attempted.
- Off-subdomain topic: State that the topic falls outside Industrial AI scope, suggest the closest supported subdomain, and ask the user whether to proceed or abort.
- Inaccessible databases: Note which sources were unreachable, proceed with available sources, and flag the gap in the final report.
- Too few papers (<5 shortlisted): Lower the time window threshold, include Tier 2/3 venues, and explicitly note the thin evidence base in the synthesis.
Reference Map
| File | Phase | When to read |
references/question-flow.md | Intake | Before asking the user any questions |
references/source-priority.md | Search Plan | Before building venue buckets |
references/venue-map.md | Search Plan | Before selecting specific venues |
references/report-modes.md | Report Assembly | Before structuring the final output |
references/quality-checklist.md | Report Assembly | Before finalizing the report |
references/modules/SURVEY_OUTLINE.md | Survey S1 | When building the survey outline |
references/modules/SURVEY_EVIDENCE.md | Survey S2 | When assembling evidence packs |
references/modules/SURVEY_WRITER.md | Survey S3 | When drafting survey sections |
references/modules/SURVEY_MERGE.md | Survey S4 | When merging and running quality gate |
references/SURVEY_WRITING_GUIDE.md | Survey S1–S4 | Survey writing philosophy reference |
Examples
examples/predictive-maintenance.mdexamples/intelligent-scheduling.mdexamples/industrial-anomaly-detection.mdexamples/survey-predictive-maintenance.md
Example Requests
- “Research recent predictive maintenance papers from the last 3 years and return a research-brief.”
- “Compare industrial anomaly detection papers across arXiv and IEEE automation venues, and show contradictions in evaluation setups.”
- “Draft a survey on intelligent scheduling for researchers new to the subfield, but stop after the YAML outline for approval.”
- “My topic is warehouse picking robotics. If that is outside scope, tell me the closest supported Industrial AI framing and proceed only with that.”
Boundaries
This v1 skill does not implement:
- systematic review mode
- meta-analysis
- IRB-heavy or clinical ethics branches
- standalone automation scripts
If the user needs those, state the boundary and continue with the closest supported research mode.
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.

