01 ideation

Ideation Engine

Skill Metadata

• Skill Name: Ideation Engine
• Version: 2.0.0
• Purpose: Systematically generate, evaluate, and refine novel research ideas with quantified novelty assessment and contribution mapping
• Trigger: User wants to develop a new research idea, find a research gap, formulate hypotheses, or assess novelty of a proposed study
• Integration: Feeds into Literature Command (02) for gap validation, Methodology Architect (03) for design, and Writing Engine (06) for articulation

---

ACTIVATE: IDEATION

When the user invokes the Ideation Engine, execute the following five-phase protocol. Do not skip phases. Do not proceed to the next phase until the current one produces output that meets the quality criteria specified.

---

PHASE 1: FIELD CARTOGRAPHY

Objective: Map the intellectual terrain of the target domain to locate frontiers, adjacencies, and contrarian opportunities.

1.1 Frontier Scan

• Identify the 5 most actively cited research streams in the domain over the past 3 years
• For each stream, catalog: leading authors, core journals, dominant methodologies, typical sample sizes, prevailing effect sizes
• Tag each stream as: Advancing (growing citation velocity), Plateauing (stable citation velocity), or Retreating (declining citation velocity)
• Flag streams where methodological sophistication exceeds theoretical depth — these represent opportunities for theoretical contribution

1.2 Adjacency Scan

• Identify 3 neighboring fields whose methods, theories, or data could cross-pollinate into the target domain
• For each adjacency, specify:
  • Transferable construct: What concept or method could be imported?
  • Adaptation requirement: What modifications are needed for the target domain?
  • Novelty potential: Low / Medium / High — with justification
  • Risk assessment: Likelihood that the transfer produces trivial or forced results

1.3 Contrarian Probe

• Identify 3 widely accepted claims in the field that have never been rigorously challenged
• For each claim, assess:
  • Evidential basis: How strong is the supporting evidence actually? (Rate: Iron-clad / Strong / Moderate / Weak / Folklore)
  • Challenge feasibility: Could a well-designed study plausibly overturn this? (Rate: High / Medium / Low)
  • Impact if overturned: How much would the field change? (Rate: Paradigm shift / Major revision / Moderate correction / Minor nuance)
• Generate one contrarian research question per challengeable claim

Quality Gate: Phase 1 output must include at least 5 frontier streams, 3 adjacencies, and 3 contrarian probes. If the domain is too narrow to support this, expand scope to the parent discipline.

---

PHASE 2: GAP TYPOLOGY

Objective: Classify identified gaps using the seven-type taxonomy to ensure comprehensive coverage and avoid over-concentration on a single gap type.

Gap Types

#	Gap Type	Definition	Diagnostic Question
1	Knowledge Gap	What is not yet known about a phenomenon	"What do we still not understand about X?"
2	Method Gap	Existing methods are inadequate or absent	"How could we study X more rigorously?"
3	Theory Gap	No adequate theoretical explanation exists	"Why does X occur — and can we explain it?"
4	Application Gap	Knowledge exists but is not applied	"How can we use what we know about X to solve Y?"
5	Replication Gap	Findings lack independent replication	"Has X been replicated in different contexts?"
6	Population Gap	Findings limited to specific populations	"Does X hold for underrepresented group Z?"
7	Mechanistic Gap	Correlation known but mechanism unknown	"Through what process does X lead to Y?"

Gap Assessment Matrix

For each identified gap, score on:

• Severity (1-5): How significant is the gap's absence for the field?
• Feasibility (1-5): How tractable is addressing this gap with available resources?
• Impact (1-5): How much would closing this gap advance knowledge?
• Novelty (1-5): How many existing studies already target this gap?

Compute the Gap Priority Index (GPI) = (Severity × 0.3) + (Feasibility × 0.2) + (Impact × 0.3) + (Novelty × 0.2)

Rank gaps by GPI descending. Only gaps scoring ≥ 3.0 should advance to Phase 3.

Quality Gate: Must produce at least 3 gaps spanning at least 2 different gap types. No more than 40% of gaps should be of a single type.

---

PHASE 3: QUESTION FORGE

Objective: Transform validated gaps into precise, answerable, and novel research questions.

Research Question Template

[UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS / HOW / WHY / TO WHAT EXTENT]
does [INDEPENDENT VARIABLE / INTERVENTION / EXPOSURE]
[affect / influence / moderate / mediate / predict]
[DEPENDENT VARIABLE / OUTCOME]
in [POPULATION / CONTEXT]
given [THEORETICAL LENS / MECHANISM]?

Five-Dimensional Scoring

Dimension	Weight	Scoring Criteria
Specificity	0.20	1=Vague topic area → 5=Precise variables, direction, and population specified
Answerability	0.20	1=Unanswerable with any method → 5=Clearly answerable with standard methods
Novelty	0.25	1=Already answered in literature → 5=No prior work addresses this
Impact	0.20	1=Niche interest only → 5=Field-altering implications
Groundedness	0.15	1=No theoretical basis → 5=Directly derived from established theory

Research Question Quality Index (RQI) = Σ(Dimension Score × Weight)

RQI Interpretation:

• 4.0–5.0: Excellent — proceed directly to Phase 4
• 3.0–3.9: Good — refine wording and re-score
• 2.0–2.9: Marginal — return to Phase 2 and identify alternative gap
• Below 2.0: Unviable — discard and restart

Question Refinement Checklist

• Variables are operationally definable
• The question implies a falsifiable hypothesis
• The population is specified and accessible
• The scope is neither too broad nor too narrow
• The question is not a disguised "does X exist?" (trivial)
• The question does not presuppose its answer
• Alternative explanations are acknowledged

Quality Gate: Must produce at least 2 research questions per gap, select the highest RQI question, and verify it scores ≥ 3.5.

---

PHASE 4: CONTRIBUTION MAPPING

Objective: Forecast and articulate the specific contributions the proposed research will make across four domains.

Contribution Domains

4.1 Theoretical Contribution

• New theory construction: Does this create a new theoretical framework?
• Theory extension: Does this extend an existing theory to a new domain?
• Theory refinement: Does this refine or qualify an existing theory?
• Theory integration: Does this bridge two or more theoretical traditions?
• Theory falsification: Does this test a theory's predictions under new conditions?

4.2 Methodological Contribution

• New measure/instrument development
• Novel analytical approach or statistical technique
• Improved research design for existing questions
• New data collection methodology
• Validation of existing methods in new contexts

4.3 Practical Contribution

• Direct intervention or policy implication
• Clinical or organizational application
• Stakeholder decision-making support
• Tool or resource creation
• Training or educational application

4.4 Field Impact

• Opens new research stream
• Resolves standing debate
• Shifts methodological norms
• Bridges sub-disciplines
• Influences funding priorities

Contribution Statement Template

This study contributes to [FIELD] by [CONTRIBUTION TYPE] [WHAT IS CONTRIBUTED],
which [HOW IT ADVANCES] [SPECIFIC AREA], thereby [BROADER IMPLICATION].
Unlike prior work that [WHAT OTHERS DID], this study [WHAT IS DIFFERENT AND BETTER].

Quality Gate: The research must articulate at least one contribution in at least two domains. At least one contribution must be rated "substantial" (not merely incremental).

---

PHASE 5: NOVELTY CERTIFICATE

Objective: Quantify the novelty of the proposed research using the four-dimension scoring system and issue a formal novelty assessment.

Scoring Dimensions (0–25 each)

Dimension	21–25	16–20	11–15	6–10	0–5
First-of-its-kind	No prior work in this space	One preliminary study exists	A few studies exist but are narrow	Several studies exist	Well-trodden territory
Methodological Innovation	Entirely new method or paradigm	Significant adaptation of existing method	Moderate methodological refinement	Minor methodological tweak	Standard method, no innovation
Theoretical Advancement	New theory or paradigm shift	Major theory extension	Moderate theory refinement	Minor theoretical nuance	No theoretical contribution
Empirical Impact	Findings would reshape the field	Findings would influence multiple sub-fields	Findings would influence one sub-field	Findings would be cited but not transformative	Findings would have limited reach

Total Score Bands

Score Range	Classification	Description
90–100	Paradigm Shift	Field-altering work; will be cited for decades
75–89	Major Contribution	Substantially advances understanding; high-impact publication likely
60–74	Solid Contribution	Meaningful advance; suitable for strong specialty journal
45–59	Incremental	Adds to literature but does not shift understanding
30–44	Marginal	Limited novelty; significant revision needed
0–29	Redundant	Insufficient novelty; do not pursue in current form

Novelty Certificate Format

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║          NOVELTY CERTIFICATE                 ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Research Topic: [TOPIC]                      ║
║ Date: [DATE]                                 ║
║                                              ║
║ First-of-its-kind:      [XX]/25             ║
║ Methodological Innovation: [XX]/25           ║
║ Theoretical Advancement:  [XX]/25            ║
║ Empirical Impact:         [XX]/25            ║
║ ─────────────────────────────────            ║
║ TOTAL NOVELTY SCORE:      [XX]/100           ║
║ Classification: [CLASSIFICATION]             ║
║                                              ║
║ Key Strength: [STRONGEST DIMENSION]          ║
║ Key Weakness: [WEAKEST DIMENSION]            ║
║ Recommended Action: [PROCEED/REVISE/PIVOT]  ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Quality Gate: If the total novelty score is below 45, return to Phase 1 with expanded scope. If between 45–59, identify specific strategies from the novelty_calculator.md to strengthen the weakest dimensions before proceeding.

---

OUTPUT FORMAT

The Ideation Engine produces the following structured output:

# Ideation Engine Output

## 1. Field Cartography
### Frontier Streams
[Numbered list with tags]
### Adjacency Opportunities
[Numbered list with novelty potential]
### Contrarian Probes
[Numbered list with challengeability assessment]

## 2. Gap Analysis
[Gap Priority Matrix with GPI scores and rankings]

## 3. Research Questions
[Top questions with RQI scores and refinement notes]

## 4. Contribution Map
[Contributions by domain with substantiveness rating]

## 5. Novelty Certificate
[Full certificate with scores and classification]

## 6. Recommended Next Steps
[Suggested integration with Literature Command and Methodology Architect]

---

INTEGRATION NOTES

With Literature Command (02_literature_command)

• Feed identified gaps and questions into the Literature Command for systematic validation
• Use the Deep Synthesis Engine to confirm gaps are genuine (not already filled)
• Use Citation Strategy to identify which works to position against

With Methodology Architect (03_methodology_architect)

• Feed the top-ranked research question and contribution map to the Methodology Architect
• The methodology must align with the gap type identified (e.g., Method Gaps require methodological innovation)
• Pre-registration should reference the novelty certificate's dimensions

With Writing Engine (06_writing_engine)

• The Contribution Statement Template feeds directly into the Introduction and Discussion sections
• The Novelty Certificate informs the "contributions" subsection
• Gap typology terms should appear in the literature review framing

With Review Simulator (07_review_simulator)

• Feed the Novelty Certificate to the Review Simulator to predict reviewer objections about novelty claims
• Use contrarian probes to anticipate reviewer skepticism

---

USAGE EXAMPLES

Example 1: Exploring a new domain

User: "I want to study AI-assisted medical diagnosis but I'm not sure where the real gaps are."
→ Execute all 5 phases with "AI-assisted medical diagnosis" as the target domain.

Example 2: Refining an existing idea

User: "I think there's a gap in how mindfulness interventions affect decision-making under uncertainty, but I'm not sure if it's novel enough."
→ Skip Phase 1, validate the gap in Phase 2, forge questions in Phase 3, and assess novelty in Phase 5.

Example 3: Assessing novelty of a drafted proposal

User: "Here's my research proposal [PASTED TEXT]. How novel is it?"
→ Execute Phase 5 only, extracting contributions from the proposal text.

---

VERSION HISTORY

• v2.0.0 — Added five-dimensional RQI scoring, Gap Priority Index, Novelty Certificate format, integration protocols
• v1.0.0 — Initial release with basic gap identification and question generation