agentleFS
kinhluankinhluan/skills/skills/research-question/SKILL.md

research-question

Skill6 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Formulate research questions, hypotheses, and contribution statements from identified literature gaps. Use when defining a research problem, framing a thesis topic, identifying novelty, or writing the "contribution" section of a proposal or paper.

6 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

1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Run sota-survey first. You need a gap table before formulating RQ.

    line 21

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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

Research Question Formulation

Bridge the gap between what exists (SOTA) and what you'll contribute.

Prerequisite

Run sota-survey first. You need a gap table before formulating RQ.

Workflow

Step 1 — Gap → Problem Statement

For each gap from SOTA survey, apply this template:

Despite [what exists], [limitation/gap] remains unsolved because [root cause].
This causes [concrete consequence] in [application domain].

Example:

Despite federated learning achieving competitive accuracy, communication efficiency in heterogeneous IoT networks remains unsolved because existing methods assume uniform client capabilities. This causes excessive energy drain in resource-constrained healthcare devices.

Step 2 — Formulate Research Questions

Main RQ (1 sentence):

How can [method/approach] be designed to [achieve goal] in [context/constraint]?

Sub-questions (2-4, each answerable in ~1 paper/chapter):

  • RQ1: [measurable, specific]
  • RQ2: [builds on RQ1]
  • RQ3: [validates or extends]

RQ Quality Check:

  • Specific — not "improve performance" but "reduce communication rounds by X%"
  • Feasible — answerable in your timeline with your resources
  • Novel — not already answered in literature
  • Significant — matters to the field
  • Ethical — no harm, IRB if needed

Step 3 — Hypothesis (if experimental)

H0 (null): [Method A] performs no better than [baseline] on [metric] in [setting]
H1 (alternative): [Method A] achieves [≥X% improvement] over [baseline] on [metric]

Step 4 — Contribution Statement

Structure for proposal and paper Introduction:

## Contributions

This work makes the following contributions:

1. **[Type: Algorithm/Framework/Dataset/Analysis]**: We propose [name], which [what it does] to address [gap].
2. **[Type]**: We demonstrate [empirical result] on [benchmark], showing [magnitude] improvement over [baseline].
3. **[Type]** (optional): We release [artifact] for reproducibility.

Contribution types: Algorithm, Framework, Dataset, Benchmark, Analysis, Survey, System, Theorem.

Step 5 — Scope Boundary

Explicitly state what you will NOT do (saves you from committee scope creep):

Out of scope:
- [Related problem you won't solve and why]
- [Assumption you're making]
- [Limitation you accept]

Output Format

## Research Problem Definition

**Problem:** [1-2 sentence problem statement]

**Main RQ:** [Single question]

**Sub-questions:**
- RQ1: ...
- RQ2: ...

**Hypothesis:**
- H0: ...
- H1: ...

**Contributions:**
1. ...
2. ...

**Out of scope:** ...

Links to Other Skills

  • Requires → sota-survey (gap table as input)
  • Feeds into → phd-proposal (problem statement section)
  • Feeds into → paper-writing (Introduction + Contribution sections)

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.