# Research Architect Brainstorm

> Converts a target paper's transferable logic, a raw topic, and available materials into distinct feasible research-question and adaptation options.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-mmthebest-research-architect-research-architect-brainstorm`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [mmTheBest](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/mmthebest)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [mmTheBest](https://github.com/mmTheBest)
- **Source:** https://github.com/mmTheBest/Research-Architect/tree/main/src/skills/research-architect-brainstorm

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-mmthebest-research-architect-research-architect-brainstorm
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Research Architect Brainstorm

Use this branch after intake. When target references exist, run the target-reference pass of `research-architect-literature` first so brainstorming can adapt known research logic rather than guess from the topic alone.

## Inputs

Read:

```text
paper_output/project_config.json
paper_output/source_map.md
paper_output/source_inventory.md
paper_output/exemplar_logic_profile.md        # when target references exist
paper_output/exemplar_adaptation_plan.md      # preliminary version when available
```

## Brainstorming lenses

Generate candidates using these lenses:

1. **Reference-logic lens:** Which question-forming, theory, design, evidence, analysis, and argument principles make the target paper work?
2. **Adaptation lens:** What is the user's project analogue, and which context-dependent assumptions require replacement?
3. **Problem lens:** What unresolved tension, contradiction, practical concern, or conceptual limitation is visible?
4. **Material lens:** What can the user measure, observe, interpret, compare, trace, derive, review, or test?
5. **Method and inquiry lens:** Which design family and logic of inquiry can generate a defensible answer?
6. **Warrant lens:** What empirical, interpretive, comparative, theoretical, or argumentative warrant can support the claim?
7. **Disconfirmation lens:** Which negative case, rival explanation, counterexample, sensitivity test, or boundary condition would clarify scope?
8. **Reader-value lens:** What would a skeptical reader learn that existing work does not already establish?

## Required outputs

Create:

```text
paper_output/problem_landscape.md
paper_output/idea_candidate_matrix.md
paper_output/research_question_options.md
paper_output/feasibility_filter.md
```

## Candidate matrix

Use:

| Candidate ID | Problem or Tension | Candidate Research Question | Reference Logic Inherited | Required Adaptation | User-Specific Contribution | Needed Evidence or Warrant | Available Material | Missing Material | Feasibility | Mismatch Risk | Claim Risk | Next Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Option requirements

Each target-driven option must state:

- which strength of the reference paper it preserves;
- which source-specific assumption it replaces;
- how the user's context creates an independent contribution;
- what evidence or argumentative warrant is required;
- which design family is provisionally selected;
- what action the user should take first;
- what claim remains supportable if the full target design is infeasible.

Options should differ in research logic, evidence path, or contribution. Topic paraphrases do not count as distinct options.

## Filtering

Classify candidates as:

- `advance`: coherent, answerable, and feasible enough for literature positioning;
- `needs_more_material`: promising with a clearly identified missing input;
- `defer`: useful after a simpler or narrower study is completed;
- `reject`: already answered, unsupported, structurally mismatched, or lacking a defensible inquiry path.

Conceptual, critical, interpretive, and normative projects can advance when they have explicit premises, source-selection logic, argumentative warrants, counterarguments, and scope.

## Output behavior

Present 2-5 candidate directions and explain the reference-derived logic behind each. The final research spine remains a user decision after literature positioning.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [mmTheBest](https://github.com/mmTheBest)
- **Source:** [mmTheBest/Research-Architect](https://github.com/mmTheBest/Research-Architect)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-mmthebest-research-architect-research-architect-brainstorm
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/mmthebest
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.