ccf-idea-optimizer

Develop and optimize rough CCF research ideas into problems, insights, mechanisms, and evidence plans. Use for 优化idea, 具象化idea, 找方向, 方向探索, and rescue routes when development is the requested deliverable. Judging whether an idea is worthwhile, novel, or coherent belongs to ccf-idea-reviewer even with

By mikubaka88 · 843 installs

npx skills add mikubaka88/ccfa-skills --skill ccf-idea-optimizer

Source repository · Upstream listing

CCF Idea Optimizer Family File Contract Before file work, reuse canonical paths and one task/artifact working directory; default to project root ccfa workfiles/<purpose /<artifact id / . Update in place, preserve inputs, and use UTF 8 with Chinese text checks. Apply [artifact contracts.md](../ccf common/references/artifact contracts.md) for naming, ownership, and task created cleanup; handoffs inherit these paths. Collaboration Contract Before specialist execution, read and apply [ccf humanization](../ccf humanization/SKILL.md) first, then [ccf common](../ccf common/SKILL.md). At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant. Integrate necessary specialist contributions under one owner; reuse valid prerequisites and verify affected results. Follow the [cooperation routes](../ccf common/references/routing.md) without duplicate reports. Invocation Controls CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf skill controls.handoff question mode , ../ccf common/references/handoff modes.md , and ../ccf common/references/task modes.md . Complete requested idea development and necessary public safe grounding under existing authorization. Do not load scoring, writing, or full experiment design workflows unless their deliverables are requested or needed. Core Rule Turn a rough direction into a concrete problem, grounded gap, causal insight, mechanism, and falsifiable evidence plan. Distinguish source backed observations from inferred opportunities. Do not invent prior work, results, reviewer sentiment, or novelty. Related work should clarify differentiation; an unsearched or crowded direction is uncertain, not automatically dead. Preserve the user's theme and constraints. Vary framing or mechanism within the authorized development scope, and explain consequential changes. A useful idea has a coherent reason the intervention should change an observable result; a list of familiar modules is insufficient. Requested innovation authorizes distinct candidate mechanisms even with optional route comparison off. Keep the research question stable while exploring; preserve a selected mechanism during execution unless a material reason reopens it. Use Common's progress test to stop repeated critique or search that adds no decision relevant information. When contributing to explicitly requested autonomous research, use the current observations and failed assumptions to propose the next mechanism, analysis, or search strategy. A stable research objective does not freeze the initial method; change the operation or underlying assumption when the evidence calls for it. Return the hypothesis and discriminating prediction to ccf pipeline orchestrator , following its [research loop](../ccf pipeline orchestrator/references/autonomous research.md). The authorized campaign's scope and resources govern candidate breadth, not the one extra candidate rule for skill maintenance. Ordinary idea development still needs no executed experiments. Modes Exploratory: develop rough seeds, find directions, and rescue promising ingredients before judging readiness. Quick: repair one local mechanism or give a concise idea card. Standard: ground a mature direction and produce a handoff ready research plan. Workflow 1. Extract the user's decision, field, stage, resources, timeline, and available sources. Infer routine details and mark unknowns. Load references/idea intake.md only for messy or incomplete inputs; do not restart intake when the conversation already supplies them. 2. When venue fit matters, use ../ccf common/references/ccf a venue map.md and the relevant references/venue idea adapters.md passage. An unspecified venue can use a labeled generic CCF A lens. 3. Ground timeliness and closest work when needed for the request. Use ../ccf common/references/privacy and evidence.md before browsing; search public safe terms. Use ccf literature monitor for recent paper watch and ccf literature searcher for deeper retrieval. Honor no browsing requests and label unsearched novelty accurately. 4. When sources are available, use references/literature grounded evolution.md to retain compact evidence cards, mechanism primitives, protocol anchors, and unresolved relations. Keep source locations rather than loading whole abstracts repeatedly. Trace borrowed ideas and inferred gaps separately. 5. For an underdetermined direction or explicit request for a breakthrough, use references/frontier ideation.md to generate meaningfully different candidates. Three to five is a starting range, not a quota or ceiling; honor requested breadth. One well specified idea otherwise needs targeted improvement. Keep useful lineage and operations such as refine, combine, transfer, invert, or instrument internally. 6. Use references/problem method blueprint.md to connect problem, root challenge, insight, mechanism, assumptions, and expected observation. Check incompatible data assumptions, objectives, or resources. Keep the strongest route and a genuinely different fallback when useful. 7. Challenge the route against the closest overlap concern and its weakest evidence link. Use ccf idea reviewer for a focused conceptual check when a material uncertainty remains; integrate findings and check affected assumptions. Each return must resolve a concern, add evidence, or test a different mechanism; otherwise stop the review/development ping pong and name the discriminator. A reviewer's smallest repair is a diagnostic option, not a ceiling on authorized innovation. Requested standalone assessment remains the reviewer's deliverable. 8. Match evidence planning to the requested artifact. Early idea cards need a discriminating observation, proof direction, or question, not an experiment matrix. For a complete research plan or explicitly requested evidence design, use references/experiment design.md to select relevant evidence for the central claim. Full execution protocols belong to ccf experiment designer ; planned results remain predictions, not evidence. 9. Return the developed idea in the user's requested shape. Distinguish current weakness from development potential. Offer a rescue when a specific plausible change preserves value; stop a candidate with a demonstrated contradiction, hard constraint violation, or no remaining contribution without a compulsory rescue pass. Preserve the broader research objective. If a required decision remains open, explain the exact evidence needed and finish the independent parts. Output Contract Return an idea card, options, mechanism blueprint, or roadmap as requested. A standard plan contains the problem, source backed gap, insight, method, contribution type, evidence plan, closest work difference, material assumptions, and next decision. Include candidate alternatives only when developed and useful. Keep branch bookkeeping, reviewer simulation, and generic checklist status out of publication prose. Use necessary grounding and conceptual checks within development; do not turn their internal findings into an unrequested score report or manuscript. For a combined requested workflow, complete each deliverable with its owner under existing authorization. References references/idea intake.md : normalize incomplete or multiple seeds. references/frontier ideation.md , references/literature grounded evolution.md : diverse development and source grounded evolution. references/problem method blueprint.md : problem to mechanism reasoning. references/venue idea adapters.md : applicable venue priorities. references/experiment design.md : minimum discriminating evidence. references/research taste.md : explicit questions about research quality, elegance, and timeliness. references/source notes.md : source provenance and current policy checks.