What problem does it solve? Deciding whether a research idea is worth months of effort is hard: weak novelty, capability mismatches, and hidden fatal flaws often surface only after heavy investment. This Skill evaluates a draft research idea like a top-venue reviewer and advisor, killing weak ideas early and sharpening promising ones before writing begins. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Five-Dimension Scoring: Scores ideas on Higher, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, and Broader axes with evidence-grounded rubrics, plus substitute frameworks for humanities, social science, finance, and law. - Fatal-Flaws Audit: Detects ten canonical fatal flaws (no novelty, wrong venue, capability mismatch, and more) with severity tagging and concrete defense strategies; CRITICAL flaws short-circuit to a Reject and Pivot verdict. - Lifecycle and Paradigm-Shift Analysis: Matches the idea's lifecycle against the user's weekly hours, skills, and infrastructure, and probes disruptive potential via First Principles, Elephant in the Room, Technology Cycle, and Hamming's Rule. - Use Case: A PhD student with a draft Text-to-SQL agent idea asks whether it is worth pursuing; the Skill scores all dimensions, checks feasibility against their GPU budget and 20 weekly hours, and returns a verdict with the top three actions to take first. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to evaluate your draft research idea, including your available hours, skills, and compute resources, and request a scored verdict.
