agentleFS
raja21068raja21068/AutoResearch/skills/aris/research-refine-pipeline/SKILL.md

research-refine-pipeline

Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run an end-to-end workflow that chains `research-refine` and `experiment-plan`. Use when the user wants a one-shot pipeline from vague research direction to focused final proposal plus detailed experiment roadmap, or asks to "串起来", build a pipeline, do it end-to-end, or generate both the method and experiment plan together.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

23 rules. 16 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • 16

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Use this skill when the user does not want to stop at a refined method.

    line 13
  2. Common:

    Do not plan a large experiment suite on top of an unstable method.

    line 32
  3. Very specific:

    Check whether refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md already exists and still matches the current request.

    line 48
  4. Very specific:

    If the proposal is missing, stale, or materially different from the current request, run the full research-refine stage.

    line 49
  5. Common:

    If the proposal is already strong and aligned, reuse it and jump to experiment planning.

    line 50
  6. Very specific:

    If in doubt, prefer re-running research-refine rather than planning experiments for the wrong method.

    line 51
  7. Very specific:

    Run the research-refine workflow and keep its V3 philosophy intact:

    line 55
  8. Common:

    prefer the smallest adequate mechanism

    line 58
  9. Common:

    keep one dominant contribution

    line 59
  10. Very specific:

    If the verdict is still REVISE, continue into experiment planning only if the remaining weaknesses are clearly documented.

    line 70
  11. Common:

    Before the experiment stage, write a short gate check:

    line 74
  12. Common:

    If these answers are not crisp, tighten the final proposal first.

    line 82
  13. Very specific:

    Run the experiment-plan workflow grounded in:

    line 86
  14. Common:

    Ensure the experiment plan covers:

    line 92
  15. Common:

    run order, budget, and decision gates

    line 98
  16. Very specific:

    Large file handling: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks.

    line 168
  17. Common:

    Do not let the experiment plan override the Problem Anchor.

    line 170
  18. Common:

    Do not widen the paper story after method refinement unless a missing validation block is truly necessary.

    line 171
  19. Common:

    Keep the main paper story compact.

    line 173
  20. Common:

    If the method is intentionally simple, defend that simplicity in the experiment plan rather than adding new components.

    line 174
  21. Common:

    If the method uses a modern LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL primitive, make its necessity test explicit.

    line 175
  22. Common:

    If the method does not need a frontier primitive, say that clearly and avoid forcing one.

    line 176
  23. Common:

    Prefer the staged skills when the user only needs one stage.

    line 177

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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 Refine Pipeline: End-to-End Method and Experiment Planning

Refine and concretize: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Use this skill when the user does not want to stop at a refined method. The goal is to produce a coherent package that includes:

  • a problem-anchored, elegant final proposal
  • the review history explaining why the method is focused
  • a detailed experiment roadmap tied to the paper's claims
  • a compact pipeline summary that says what to run next

This skill composes two existing workflows:

  1. research-refine for method refinement
  2. experiment-plan for claim-driven validation planning

For stage-specific detail, read these sibling skills only when needed:

  • ../research-refine/SKILL.md
  • ../experiment-plan/SKILL.md

Core Rule

Do not plan a large experiment suite on top of an unstable method. First stabilize the thesis. Then turn the stable thesis into experiments.

Default Outputs

  • refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md
  • refine-logs/REVIEW_SUMMARY.md
  • refine-logs/REFINEMENT_REPORT.md
  • refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md
  • refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md
  • refine-logs/PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md

Workflow

Phase 0: Triage the Starting Point

  • Extract the problem, rough approach, constraints, resources, and target venue.
  • Check whether refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md already exists and still matches the current request.
  • If the proposal is missing, stale, or materially different from the current request, run the full research-refine stage.
  • If the proposal is already strong and aligned, reuse it and jump to experiment planning.
  • If in doubt, prefer re-running research-refine rather than planning experiments for the wrong method.

Phase 1: Method Refinement Stage

Run the research-refine workflow and keep its V3 philosophy intact:

  • preserve the Problem Anchor
  • prefer the smallest adequate mechanism
  • keep one dominant contribution
  • modernize only when it improves the paper

Exit this stage only when these are explicit:

  • the final method thesis
  • the dominant contribution
  • the complexity intentionally rejected
  • the key claims and must-run ablations
  • the remaining risks, if any

If the verdict is still REVISE, continue into experiment planning only if the remaining weaknesses are clearly documented.

Phase 2: Planning Gate

Before the experiment stage, write a short gate check:

  • What is the final method thesis?
  • What is the dominant contribution?
  • What complexity was intentionally rejected?
  • Which reviewer concerns still matter for validation?
  • Is a frontier primitive central, optional, or absent?

If these answers are not crisp, tighten the final proposal first.

Phase 3: Experiment Planning Stage

Run the experiment-plan workflow grounded in:

  • refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md
  • refine-logs/REVIEW_SUMMARY.md
  • refine-logs/REFINEMENT_REPORT.md

Ensure the experiment plan covers:

  • the main anchor result
  • novelty isolation
  • a simplicity or deletion check
  • a frontier necessity check if applicable
  • run order, budget, and decision gates

Phase 4: Integration Summary

Write refine-logs/PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md:

# Pipeline Summary

**Problem**: [problem]
**Final Method Thesis**: [one sentence]
**Final Verdict**: [READY / REVISE / RETHINK]
**Date**: [today]

## Final Deliverables
- Proposal: `refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`
- Review summary: `refine-logs/REVIEW_SUMMARY.md`
- Experiment plan: `refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md`
- Experiment tracker: `refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md`

## Contribution Snapshot
- Dominant contribution:
- Optional supporting contribution:
- Explicitly rejected complexity:

## Must-Prove Claims
- [Claim 1]
- [Claim 2]

## First Runs to Launch
1. [Run]
2. [Run]
3. [Run]

## Main Risks
- [Risk]:
- [Mitigation]:

## Next Action
- Proceed to `/run-experiment`

Phase 5: Present a Brief Summary to the User

Pipeline complete.

Method output:
- refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md

Experiment output:
- refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md
- refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md

Pipeline summary:
- refine-logs/PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md

Best next step:
- /run-experiment

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.
  • Do not let the experiment plan override the Problem Anchor.
  • Do not widen the paper story after method refinement unless a missing validation block is truly necessary.
  • Reuse the same claims across FINAL_PROPOSAL.md, EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, and PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md.
  • Keep the main paper story compact.
  • If the method is intentionally simple, defend that simplicity in the experiment plan rather than adding new components.
  • If the method uses a modern LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL primitive, make its necessity test explicit.
  • If the method does not need a frontier primitive, say that clearly and avoid forcing one.
  • Prefer the staged skills when the user only needs one stage; use this skill for the integrated flow.

Composing with Other Skills

/research-refine-pipeline -> one-shot method + experiment planning
/research-refine   -> method refinement only
/experiment-plan   -> experiment planning only
/run-experiment    -> execution

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.