Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research interview-me
Interactive interview to formalize a research idea into a structured specification with hypotheses and empirical strategy
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/28-maxwell2732-paper-replicate-agent-demo/dot-claude/skills/interview-me" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-interview-me-c22831 && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
skills/28-maxwell2732-paper-replicate-agent-demo/dot-claude/skills/interview-me/SKILL.mdsource content
Research Interview
Conduct a structured interview to help formalize a research idea into a concrete specification.
Input:
$ARGUMENTS — a brief topic description or "start fresh" for an open-ended exploration.
How This Works
This is a conversational skill. Instead of producing a report immediately, you conduct an interview by asking questions one at a time, probing deeper based on answers, and building toward a structured research specification.
Do NOT use AskUserQuestion. Ask questions directly in your text responses, one or two at a time. Wait for the user to respond before continuing.
Interview Structure
Phase 1: The Big Picture (1-2 questions)
- "What phenomenon or puzzle are you trying to understand?"
- "Why does this matter? Who should care about the answer?"
Phase 2: Theoretical Motivation (1-2 questions)
- "What's your intuition for why X happens / what drives Y?"
- "What would standard theory predict? Do you expect something different?"
Phase 3: Data and Setting (1-2 questions)
- "What data do you have access to, or what data would you ideally want?"
- "Is there a specific context, time period, or institutional setting you're focused on?"
Phase 4: Identification (1-2 questions)
- "Is there a natural experiment, policy change, or source of variation you can exploit?"
- "What's the biggest threat to a causal interpretation?"
Phase 5: Expected Results (1-2 questions)
- "What would you expect to find? What would surprise you?"
- "What would the results imply for policy or theory?"
Phase 6: Contribution (1 question)
- "How does this differ from what's already been done? What's the gap you're filling?"
After the Interview
Once you have enough information (typically 5-8 exchanges), produce a Research Specification Document:
# Research Specification: [Title] **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] **Researcher:** [from conversation context] ## Research Question [Clear, specific question in one sentence] ## Motivation [2-3 paragraphs: why this matters, theoretical context, policy relevance] ## Hypothesis [Testable prediction with expected direction] ## Empirical Strategy - **Method:** [e.g., Difference-in-Differences with staggered adoption] - **Treatment:** [What varies] - **Control:** [Comparison group] - **Key identifying assumption:** [What must hold] - **Robustness checks:** [Pre-trends, placebo tests, etc.] ## Data - **Primary dataset:** [Name, source, coverage] - **Key variables:** [Treatment, outcome, controls] - **Sample:** [Unit of observation, time period, N] ## Expected Results [What the researcher expects to find and why] ## Contribution [How this advances the literature — 2-3 sentences] ## Open Questions [Issues raised during the interview that need further thought]
Save to:
quality_reports/research_spec_[sanitized_topic].md
Interview Style
- Be curious, not prescriptive. Your job is to draw out the researcher's thinking, not impose your own ideas.
- Probe weak spots gently. If the identification strategy sounds fragile, ask "What would a skeptic say about...?" rather than "This won't work because..."
- Build on answers. Each question should follow from the previous response.
- Know when to stop. If the researcher has a clear vision after 4-5 exchanges, move to the specification. Don't over-interview.