Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research strategist

<!--

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 "$T/skills/01-lishix520-academic-paper-skills/strategist" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-strategist && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/01-lishix520-academic-paper-skills/strategist/SKILL.md

source content

name: academic-paper-strategist description: Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

Academic Paper Strategist

Overview

This skill provides a systematic framework for strategic planning of academic papers in philosophy and interdisciplinary research. It guides you through three phases—from platform selection to optimized outline—with AI-driven literature search, research gap identification, originality assessment, and quality-controlled outline design.

Output: A detailed, review-ready paper outline with supporting documentation (platform style guide, literature review, gap analysis, reviewer assessment).

Companion Skill: Use academic-paper-composer to execute the outline and write the full paper.

When to Use This Skill

Use academic-paper-strategist when you need to:

Planning Stage:

Design a research paper from initial idea to structured outline
Identify a suitable publication platform (PhilArchive, arXiv, etc.)
Understand writing standards for a specific preprint platform

Research Stage:

Conduct systematic literature search
Identify research gaps with evidence
Assess originality of your research idea
Predict potential impact

Design Stage:

Structure paper chapters and arguments
Optimize outline from reviewer perspective
Prepare submission-ready strategy

Triggers:

"Plan a paper on [topic]"
"Help me design a paper about [subject]"
"Identify research gaps in [field]"
"Is this idea original?"
"What platform should I submit to?"

Workflow Overview

Phase 1: PLATFORM ANALYSIS (Target Selection + Style Learning)
    ↓
Phase 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (AI-Driven Gap Identification)
    ↓
Phase 3: OUTLINE OPTIMIZATION (Quality-Controlled Design)
    ↓
Output: Detailed Outline + Supporting Documentation

Quality Gates: 3 validation checkpoints ensure each phase meets standards before proceeding.

Phase 1: Platform Analysis

Goal

Identify the optimal submission platform and understand its writing standards through systematic sample paper analysis.

Input Required from User

Core research idea or topic (brief description)
Target platform (optional - if unclear, I'll recommend)
Field/discipline (philosophy, cognitive science, interdisciplinary, etc.)

Workflow

Step 1.1: Platform Selection (If Needed)

If target platform unclear, I will:

List candidate platforms based on research content:
- PhilArchive/PhilPapers: Philosophy papers, phenomenology, metaphysics
- arXiv (cs.AI, q-bio.NC): Computational, neuroscience, AI-related
- PhilSci-Archive: Philosophy of science, formal methods
- PsyArXiv: Psychology, cognitive science
- SocArXiv: Social sciences, interdisciplinary
Evaluate each platform:
- Subject area alignment (does your topic fit?)
- Methodology match (philosophical/empirical/computational)
- Acceptance criteria
- Typical review timeline
Provide recommendation with reasoning
Decision Point 1: You confirm platform or suggest alternative

Step 1.2: Sample Paper Search (AI-Driven, Quality-Controlled)

I will conduct multi-dimensional search for 8-10 representative papers:

Search Strategy (load

references/search_strategy.md

for details):

Time Dimension:

Recent (last 6 months): 3 papers - capture current trends
Current (1-2 years): 3 papers - established standards
Classic (highly cited): 2 papers - quality benchmarks

Relevance Dimension:

Use keyword combinations from your topic
Score each paper 0-10 for relevance
Retain only papers scoring ≥7/10

Diversity Dimension:

Multiple authors (≥5 unique)
Different research perspectives
Varied paper lengths

Tools Used:

Exa MCP (semantic search)
Tavily MCP (web search)
Platform-specific search (PhilPapers, arXiv)

Quality Validation: After search, I'll run

scripts/evaluate_samples.py

to generate evaluation report:

python scripts/evaluate_samples.py

This produces:

Sample quality metrics
Time distribution check
Relevance statistics
Diversity assessment
Pass/Fail recommendation

Quality Gate 1 (Must Pass):

✓ Sample papers ≥8
✓ Time distribution balanced
✓ Average relevance ≥8/10
✓ Unique authors ≥5

If Failed: Re-search with adjusted criteria

Step 1.3: Writing Standards Extraction

From the 8-10 sample papers, I will extract:

Structural Patterns:

Abstract structure (Problem→Method→Results→Contribution?)
Chapter organization (how many sections? typical flow?)
Average proportions (Intro 15%, Main 70%, Conclusion 15%?)

Style Patterns:

First-person vs passive voice usage
How arguments are structured
Citation density and format
Use of technical terminology

Format Specifications:

Typical word count range
Reference count range
Section heading conventions

Output:

[Platform]_Writing_Standards_Guide.md

Phase 2: Theoretical Framework

Goal

AI-driven systematic literature search, research gap identification, and originality assessment.

Input Required from User

Core research question/thesis (your main argument)
Background context (why you're interested in this)
Optional: Any papers you already know about

Workflow

Step 2.1: Literature Search (AI-Driven, Fully Automated)

Important: This phase is AI-driven. You provide your idea; I conduct comprehensive literature search and gap analysis.

Multi-Round Search Strategy:

Round 1: Direct Search (Primary Literature)

Extract core concepts from your idea (3-5 concepts)
Generate keyword combinations (10-15 combinations)
- Concept + concept
- Concept + method
- Include synonyms and disciplinary variants
Search each combination using Exa/Tavily
Collect 30-50 candidate papers
Quality filter: Retain top 20 papers (relevance ≥7/10)

Round 2: Expanded Search (Adjacent Fields)

Extract new keywords from Round 1 papers
Search adjacent disciplines:
- Philosophy → cognitive science
- Neuroscience → philosophy of mind
- AI → consciousness studies
Collect 10-20 bridging papers

Round 3: Classic Literature (Foundational Works)

Identify highly-cited papers (>100 citations)
Track citations from Round 1-2 papers
Collect 5-10 foundational papers

Total Literature Base: 35-50 papers

Load Reference:

references/search_strategy.md

for detailed methodology

Step 2.2: Research Gap Identification (AI Analysis)

Using collected literature, I will automatically identify 3-5 research gaps:

Gap Identification Methods:

Concept Mapping:
- Plot papers on Concept × Method matrix
- Identify white spaces (unexplored combinations)
Problem-Solution Analysis:
- What problems does literature address?
- What limitations do authors acknowledge?
- What questions remain unanswered?
Temporal Analysis:
- What was once studied but abandoned?
- What emerged recently but unexplored?

Gap Types:

Complete gaps: No existing research
Partial gaps: Preliminary work only, needs development
Controversy gaps: Competing theories, no resolution

For Each Gap, I Document:

Clear definition (50-100 words)
Evidence (3-5 citations showing gap exists)
Significance assessment (High/Medium/Low)
Feasibility assessment (Can you address it?)

Validation: Run

scripts/gap_analysis.py

to ensure quality:

python scripts/gap_analysis.py

This validates:

Each gap has ≥3 pieces of evidence
Definitions are specific and clear
Significance is justified

Quality Gate 2 (Must Pass):

✓ Literature base ≥20 papers
✓ Identified gaps ≥3
✓ Each gap has ≥3 evidence citations
✓ At least 1 high-significance gap

If Failed: Continue search or pivot research direction

Output:

Literature_Review_Report.md

Research_Gap_Analysis.md

Step 2.3: Originality Assessment (AI Analysis)

I will automatically assess your idea's originality:

Step 1: Similarity Analysis

Compare your idea with top 15 most similar papers
Create similarity matrix (topic/method/conclusion overlap)
Calculate overall similarity percentage

Interpretation:

80%: High similarity, needs repositioning
50-80%: Moderate, emphasize differences
<50%: Good originality, proceed

Step 2: Innovation Classification

Identify which innovation types apply (need ≥2):

Methodological: New approach to known problem
Theoretical: New framework or model
Application: Existing theory to new domain
Integrative: Synthesizing separate literatures

Step 3: Impact Prediction (1-10 scale)

Scoring Criteria:

Gap Importance (5 points): Core vs. peripheral problem?
Generalizability (3 points): Widely applicable?
Explanatory Power (2 points): Resolves existing puzzles?

Target: ≥7/10 for good impact potential

Output:

Originality_Assessment_Report.md

(similarity analysis + innovation types + impact prediction + 300-word justification)

Step 2.4: Core Concepts Discussion (Interactive)

Decision Point 2: Based on literature analysis, I will:

Propose 3-5 core concepts to emphasize
Explain rationale (based on gap analysis + literature frequency)
Ask for your feedback: Agree? Adjust? Add?

This ensures the paper focuses on the right concepts to maximize contribution.

Phase 3: Outline Optimization

Goal

Design a structured, review-ready outline optimized from a reviewer's perspective.

Input

Literature analysis from Phase 2
Core concepts (confirmed in Step 2.4)
Platform standards from Phase 1

Workflow

Step 3.1: Initial Structure Design

Based on platform standards, I will:

Design chapter structure:
- Abstract
- Introduction (with subsections)
- Main body (3-5 chapters, each with subsections)
- Conclusion
Allocate word counts:
- Introduction: 15-20% of total
- Main body: 60-70% of total
- Conclusion: 10-15% of total
Determine argument flow:
- Logical progression of ideas
- Where to introduce concepts
- Where to address objections

Output:

Initial_Outline_Draft.md

Step 3.2: Reviewer-Perspective Self-Assessment

I will evaluate the outline as if I were a platform reviewer, using 7 dimensions (load

references/quality_standards.md

for criteria):

7-Dimension Assessment (5 points each, 35 total):

Argument Clarity (1-5)
- Is the thesis clear?
- Are supporting arguments identifiable?
Argument Completeness (1-5)
- Any logical gaps or jumps?
- All premises justified?
Literature Support (1-5)
- Expected citation count (40+ for philosophy)
- Key works covered?
Methodological Clarity (1-5)
- Approach explicit (philosophical argument/phenomenological/etc.)?
- Method justified?
Originality Expression (1-5)
- Contribution clear?
- Differentiated from existing work?
Organization (1-5)
- Logical flow?
- Proportions balanced?
Platform Fit (1-5)
- Matches platform style?
- Meets format requirements?

Scoring:

Total: X/35
Passing threshold: ≥28/35 (80%)

Requirement: Must identify at least 3-5 specific issues with concrete improvement suggestions.

Output:

Reviewer_Assessment_Report.md

Step 3.3: Optimization Recommendations (Data-Driven)

For each dimension scoring <4/5, I will provide:

Issue Description:

What specific problem exists?

Severity (High/Medium/Low):

High: Affects paper acceptability
Medium: Affects paper quality
Low: Minor improvement

Concrete Solution:

Specific actionable fix
Example of how to implement

Expected Improvement:

How much will this raise the score?

Prioritization:

All high-severity issues first
Then medium-severity
Then low-severity (optional)

Decision Point 3: I present recommendations; you decide:

Accept (implement all)
Selective (choose which to implement)
Modify (adjust recommendations)

Step 3.4: Final Outline Generation

After implementing approved optimizations, I produce:

Detailed Outline Structure:

# [Paper Title]

## Abstract (250 words)
- [Key points to cover]

## 1. Introduction (1,500 words)
### 1.1 The Puzzle (400 words)
- [Specific content guidance]
### 1.2 Existing Approaches (600 words)
- [Specific theories to discuss]
### 1.3 This Paper's Contribution (500 words)
- [Specific claims to make]

## 2. [Main Chapter] (1,200 words)
### 2.1 [Section] (400 words)
- [Argument structure]
- [Key citations]
...

[Complete structure to 3rd-level headings]

## References
- [Expected 40-60 sources]

Quality Gate 3 (Must Pass):

✓ Reviewer score ≥28/35 (80%)
✓ All high-severity issues resolved
✓ Word allocations sum to target total
✓ Platform conformity ≥70%

If Failed: Redesign outline addressing identified issues

Final Output:

Optimized_Detailed_Outline.md

Complete Output Package

Upon completion of all 3 phases, you receive:

Documentation

```
[Platform]_Writing_Standards_Guide.md
```
- Platform style patterns
- Structural templates
- Citation and format conventions
```
Sample_Papers_Evaluation_Report.md
```
- 8-10 analyzed papers
- Quality metrics
- Extracted patterns
```
Literature_Review_Report.md
```
- 35-50 core papers
- Organized by theme
- Annotated with relevance
```
Research_Gap_Analysis.md
```
- 3-5 identified gaps
- Evidence packages
- Significance assessments
```
Originality_Assessment_Report.md
```
- Similarity analysis
- Innovation classification
- Impact prediction
```
Reviewer_Assessment_Report.md
```
- 7-dimension scores
- Identified issues
- Optimization recommendations
```
Optimized_Detailed_Outline.md
```
⭐ Main Deliverable
- Complete structure to 3rd-level headings
- Word count allocations
- Content guidance for each section
- Key citations to include

Ready for Next Step

With the Optimized_Detailed_Outline.md, proceed to academic-paper-composer skill to write the full paper.

Quality Assurance System

Quality Standards Reference

For detailed evaluation criteria, load:

references/quality_standards.md

This document defines:

Sample paper selection criteria
Literature search comprehensiveness metrics
Gap identification requirements
Reviewer assessment rubrics
Quality gate thresholds

Evaluation Scripts

Two Python scripts support quality validation:

1. Sample Paper Evaluator

python scripts/evaluate_samples.py

Function: Validates collected sample papers against quality standards

Checks time distribution
Calculates average relevance
Verifies diversity
Generates evaluation report

When to Use: After Step 1.2 (sample paper search)

2. Gap Analysis Validator

python scripts/gap_analysis.py

Function: Validates identified research gaps

Checks evidence sufficiency (≥3 per gap)
Validates gap definitions
Assesses significance justifications
Generates gap portfolio report

When to Use: After Step 2.2 (gap identification)

Decision Points (Interactive)

This skill has 3 key decision points where I pause for your input:

Decision Point 1: Platform Selection (Step 1.1)

I provide: Platform analysis + recommendation You decide: Accept recommendation or suggest alternative

Decision Point 2: Core Concepts (Step 2.4)

I provide: 3-5 proposed core concepts + rationale You decide: Confirm, adjust, or supplement concepts

Decision Point 3: Optimization Acceptance (Step 3.3)

I provide: Prioritized list of improvements + recommendations You decide: Accept all, select specific ones, or request modifications

Example Usage

User Request

"I want to write a philosophy paper about self-continuity during sleep, arguing that narrative compression maintains identity across sleep-wake cycles."

Skill Response

Phase 1: Platform Analysis

Analyzing topic... Recommended platform: PhilArchive (philosophy of mind focus)
Searching sample papers... [AI searches with keywords: "self-continuity", "sleep", "personal identity", "phenomenology"]
Found 10 candidates, evaluating... ✓ 8 papers meet quality standards
Extracting writing patterns... ✓ Style guide generated

Phase 2: Theoretical Framework

Conducting literature search...
- Round 1: 25 papers on self/sleep/memory
- Round 2: 12 papers bridging philosophy + neuroscience
- Round 3: 8 classic papers (Dennett, Thompson, Metzinger)
- Total: 45 papers in literature base
Identifying gaps... ✓ 4 gaps found:
- Gap 1: Compression mechanism (how self is rebuilt)
- Gap 2: Functional explanation (why continuity needed)
- Gap 3: Philosophical implications of discontinuity
- Gap 4: Integration of phenomenology + neuroscience
Assessing originality... ✓ 62% similarity (medium), integrative innovation, impact score: 8/10
Decision Point 2: Proposed core concepts: narrative compression, periodic death, self-model transparency, memory consolidation. [User confirms]

Phase 3: Outline Optimization

Designing initial outline... ✓ 6 chapters, 9,600 words total
Reviewer assessment... Score: 26/35 (below threshold)
- Issues found: Methodological clarity (3/5), Originality expression (3/5)
Decision Point 3: Recommendations:
- Add explicit methodology section (High priority)
- Strengthen differentiation from existing work (High priority)
- [User accepts both]
Regenerating outline... ✓ New score: 30/35 (passes)

Output:

Optimized_Detailed_Outline.md

ready for writing phase

Tips for Best Results

Provide Clear Research Ideas

The more specific your initial idea, the better the literature search
Include any philosophers/theories you're building on
Mention any specific questions you want to address

Trust the AI-Driven Search

Literature search, gap identification, and originality assessment are fully automated
I use multiple search strategies to ensure comprehensive coverage
Quality gates validate that standards are met

Engage at Decision Points

Your input at the 3 decision points shapes the final outline
Feel free to adjust my recommendations based on your expertise
Decisions are collaborative, not automated

Use Quality Validation

If unsure about quality, I can re-run evaluation scripts
Reports provide objective metrics and concrete feedback
Quality gates ensure no phase proceeds without meeting standards

Iterate if Needed

If Phase 1 fails quality gates, we re-search with adjusted criteria
If Phase 2 reveals insufficient gaps, we pivot research direction
If Phase 3 scores low, we redesign with clear improvement targets

Limitations and Notes

Calibrated for philosophy and interdisciplinary papers: May need adjustment for pure empirical sciences or formal logic
Preprint platform focus: Primarily targets PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive (not peer-reviewed journals)
Requires web access: Literature search depends on Exa/Tavily MCP tools
Human judgment still essential: AI provides analysis and recommendations, but you make final decisions
Complementary to writing skill: This skill produces outlines; use academic-paper-composer for actual writing

Related Skills

Next Step: academic-paper-composer

Takes the optimized outline from this skill
Executes systematic writing with quality control
Produces submission-ready manuscript

Can Be Used Standalone: If you already have a mature outline from another source, you can skip this skill and go directly to academic-paper-composer.

Summary

academic-paper-strategist transforms a research idea into a publication-ready outline through:

Platform Analysis: Identify optimal venue and learn writing standards (8-10 sample papers)
Theoretical Framework: AI-driven literature search (35-50 papers) + gap identification (3-5 gaps) + originality assessment
Outline Optimization: Reviewer-perspective evaluation (7 dimensions) + targeted improvements

Quality Assurance: 3 quality gates + 2 validation scripts ensure each phase meets standards.

Output: Detailed outline ready for systematic writing, with complete supporting documentation.

Estimated Time: 2-4 hours for complete strategic planning (depending on literature availability and iteration needs).