oh-my-openidea 0.1.0

package/src/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+```skill
+---
+name: literature-review
+description: Conduct a structured CS/ML literature survey — searches arXiv and Semantic Scholar, synthesizes findings, and produces an annotated bibliography with a research landscape map.
+---
+```
+
+# Literature Review Skill
+
+This skill orchestrates a **comprehensive literature survey** on a CS/ML topic by coordinating Surveyor and Synthesizer agents through a structured workflow.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when:
+- Starting research on a new topic and need an overview of the field
+- Building a related work section for a paper
+- Identifying research gaps before generating hypotheses
+- Constructing an annotated bibliography on a specific concept
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Define Scope
+
+Ask the user (or infer from context):
+- **Topic**: Specific research topic or keyword (e.g., "chain-of-thought prompting", "diffusion models for 3D generation")
+- **Sub-fields**: Which arXiv categories to prioritize (e.g., cs.LG, cs.CL, cs.CV)
+- **Time range**: Default to last 3 years; extend to 5+ for foundational topics
+- **Depth**: Quick overview (10–15 papers) vs. deep survey (30–50 papers)
+
+### Step 2: Initial Search (Surveyor)
+
+Launch **@surveyor** with 3 parallel searches:
+1. Primary query: exact topic keywords on arXiv + Semantic Scholar
+2. Broad query: related concepts and parent topic
+3. Survey/review query: `"{topic} survey"` or `"{topic} review"` for overview papers
+
+Example delegation:
+```
+@surveyor: Search arXiv for "mechanistic interpretability transformers" in cs.LG and cs.AI, 
+last 3 years, 20 results. Also search Semantic Scholar for highly-cited papers (>50 citations) 
+on the same topic.
+```
+
+### Step 3: Citation Expansion (Surveyor)
+
+From the initial results, select 3–5 most relevant papers and use `citation_graph` to find:
+- Influential papers that cite them (forward expansion)
+- Key references they all share (backward expansion to foundational work)
+
+### Step 4: Synthesis (Synthesizer)
+
+Launch **@synthesizer** with the full paper corpus to produce:
+- **Landscape map**: Main research threads and how they relate
+- **Timeline**: How the field has evolved year by year
+- **Recurring benchmarks**: Which datasets/tasks are standard
+- **Open problems**: Explicitly mentioned limitations and future work
+
+### Step 5: Output
+
+Produce a structured literature review document with:
+
+```markdown
+# Literature Review: [Topic]
+
+## Overview
+[2–3 paragraph summary of the field]
+
+## Paper Categories
+### [Category 1]
+- [arXiv:XXXX] **Title** — Authors (Year) [N citations]
+  *Why relevant*: ...
+
+### [Category 2]
+...
+
+## Research Landscape
+[Synthesizer's landscape map]
+
+## Open Problems
+[Synthesizer's gap analysis]
+
+## Recommended Starting Papers
+[Top 5 papers for a newcomer, with reading order]
+```
+
+### Step 6: Save
+
+Save the landscape map and paper list to the idea store using `idea_store` with action `save` (status: `draft`) for future reference when generating hypotheses.
+
+## Quality Criteria
+
+- Minimum 15 papers for any useful survey
+- Must include at least one survey/review paper if one exists
+- All paper IDs must be verified (arXiv IDs or Semantic Scholar IDs)
+- Open problems must be grounded in specific papers (not assumed)

package/src/skills/paper-outline/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+```skill
+---
+name: paper-outline
+description: Generate a full publication-ready paper outline with section summaries, abstract, and introduction draft. Designed for ideas that have passed critique and have an experimental plan.
+---
+```
+
+# Paper Outline Skill
+
+This skill produces a **structured, submission-ready paper outline** for a validated research idea with a complete experimental plan. Output is formatted for LaTeX / Overleaf manuscript preparation.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when:
+- Ready to start writing after idea is validated and experiment plan is complete
+- Preparing a paper proposal for advisor/collaborator review
+- Creating a workshop paper or short submission
+- Generating an outline before running experiments (to align on scope)
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- Validated research idea (status: `validated` or `in_progress` in idea store)
+- Experimental plan (from `experiment-design` skill)
+- Related work list (from `literature-review` skill)
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Context Ingestion
+
+Collect and structure:
+- Idea: problem statement + core approach
+- Experimental plan: method, baselines, datasets, metrics
+- Related papers: grouped by sub-topic
+- Key claims: what the paper proves (1 main claim + 2–3 supporting claims)
+
+### Step 2: Title and Framing (Self — Orchestrator)
+
+Generate 3 candidate titles following these patterns:
+- **Descriptive**: "Method Name: Improving X by Y via Z"
+- **Problem-framing**: "Why Does X Fail? Insights and a Solution via Y"
+- **Results-driven**: "X% Better Y with Simple Z"
+
+Select the best one with brief justification.
+
+### Step 3: Outline Generation (Writer)
+
+Launch **@writer** with the full context. The writer produces:
+
+```
+Paper: [Title]
+
+Abstract (draft):
+[150–250 words covering: motivation → problem → approach → key result → significance]
+
+Section 1: Introduction
+  - Hook: [what readers care about]
+  - Problem statement: [precise formulation with {formal notation placeholder}]
+  - Our approach: [brief preview]
+  - Contributions: [3–5 bullet points — be specific: "We prove X", "We show Y improves Z by W%"]
+  - Organization: [one sentence]
+  Estimated length: 1.5–2 pages
+
+Section 2: Related Work  
+  - [Subsection for each related area, 2–4 papers each]
+  - Position statement: [explicit contrast with our approach for each subsection]
+  Estimated length: 1–1.5 pages
+
+Section 3: Method / Approach / Model
+  - 3.1 Problem Formulation: [{formal notation} — define all variables]
+  - 3.2 [Core component 1]: [description + figure placeholder]
+  - 3.3 [Core component 2]: [description + equation placeholders]
+  - 3.4 Theoretical Analysis: [if applicable — key theorems/proofs to include]
+  Estimated length: 2–3 pages
+
+Section 4: Experiments
+  - 4.1 Experimental Setup: [datasets, baselines, metrics, hardware, hyperparams]
+  - 4.2 Main Results: [table placeholder — rows × columns × expected numbers]
+  - 4.3 Ablation Studies: [ablation table placeholder]
+  - 4.4 Analysis and Discussion: [key findings to highlight]
+  Estimated length: 2.5–3 pages
+
+Section 5: Conclusion
+  - Summary: [2 sentences on what we showed]
+  - Limitations: [3 honest limitations — required by NeurIPS checklist]
+  - Future Work: [3 natural extensions]
+  Estimated length: 0.5 pages
+
+References: [estimated 25–40 citations]
+
+Total estimated page count: 8–10 pages (NeurIPS/ICML main track)
+```
+
+### Step 4: Section Drafts (Writer)
+
+Optionally draft prose for:
+- **Introduction** (usually best to draft early)
+- **Abstract** (written last but planned first)
+- **Related Work** (can be templated from literature survey)
+
+Launch **@writer** for each section separately for higher quality.
+
+### Step 5: Checklist
+
+Run the NeurIPS reproducibility checklist:
+- [ ] All claims in the paper are supported by an experiment or proof
+- [ ] Datasets are publicly available or release plan is described
+- [ ] Compute requirements are stated
+- [ ] All hyperparameters are reported
+- [ ] Code will be released (checkbox required)
+- [ ] Limitations section exists
+
+### Step 6: Save and Output
+
+Update idea in `idea_store` (action: `update`):
+- Store outline in `outline` field
+- Update status to `in_progress` (if not already)
+
+Produce a final markdown document:
+
+```markdown
+# Paper Outline: [Title]
+[Full structured outline from Step 3]
+
+## Section Drafts
+[If requested]
+
+## NeurIPS Checklist
+[From Step 5]
+```
+
+## Quality Criteria
+
+- Title must avoid hyperbole ("novel", "revolutionary", "unprecedented")
+- Contributions must be specific and verifiable claims (not vague improvements)
+- Abstract must mention the key quantitative result (even if estimated)
+- Limitations section must be honest (not "limited to supervised learning" as the only limitation)
+- Introduction must contrast with the 3 most related papers explicitly