ccf-idea-optimizer

name: ccf-idea-optimizer description: "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 without scores; manuscript edits belong to ccf-paper-writer." metadata: ccf_skill_controls: handoff_question_mode: partial respect_session_denylists: true protect_idea_scope_in_writing: true private_material_safety: moderate shared_controls: ../ccf-common/references/

CCF Idea Optimizer

Family File Contract

Before writing, resolve the canonical output and one stable working directory per task/artifact. Reuse explicit or established task paths; otherwise use project-root ccfa-workfiles/<purpose>/<artifact-id>/, with source/, assets/, cache/, and build/ only as needed. Update current files in place; do not scatter intermediates or create iteration copies. Preserve inputs and required evidence; clean only verified disposable files created by this task. Use UTF-8 text I/O and check Chinese text after saving or rendering. For file work, apply artifact-contracts.md and reuse the same paths across skill transitions.

Collaboration Contract

Before specialist execution, read and apply ccf-humanization first, then ccf-common. 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.

Keep one integrating owner and actively use other skills to resolve missing prerequisites or check material findings. Reuse applicable evidence; do not skip necessary groundwork to save tokens. Before finalizing, integrate contributions and verify affected results. Follow the conditional cooperation routes; avoid unrelated stages and 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.

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, use references/frontier-ideation.md to generate meaningfully different candidates. Three to five is a starting range, not a quota; one well-specified idea needs targeted improvement, not a forced tournament. Keep meaningful 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 value, novelty, or mechanism uncertainty remains; integrate its findings and verify the revised route. Reuse applicable checks and avoid critique that merely paraphrases the idea. A user-requested standalone assessment, including “靠谱吗” or “值得做吗” without scores, remains the reviewer's deliverable.
8. Use references/experiment-design.md to outline the minimum convincing evidence for the central claim: compatible datasets, baselines, metrics, and discriminating tests. A full execution protocol belongs to ccf-experiment-designer when requested. Planned results remain predictions to test, not evidence.
9. Return the developed idea in the user's requested shape. For a weak seed, distinguish current weakness from development potential and identify a concrete rescue or reformulation before recommending abandonment. 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.