moralespanitz/idea-selection

<SUBAGENT-STOP> If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific gap-finding search, skip this skill. Search and return structured results immediately. </SUBAGENT-STOP> <HARD-GATE> Ask ONE Carlini question at a time. Do NOT reveal the score until all 4 questions are answered. Do NOT skip any question even if the answer seems obvious. </HARD-GATE>

Idea Selection — Conversational Carlini Gate

"The single most important skill is good taste in what problems are worth solving." — Nicholas Carlini

Step 0 — Find the session

Check if a lab notebook exists:

ls .research-loop/sessions/

If yes, read the most recent one to understand context. If no, ask:

"What topic are we evaluating? (Or run /explore <topic> first to build the foundation.)"

Step 1 — Find gaps in parallel

Spawn these 3 simultaneously:

Agent 1: What has NOT been tried in [topic]? Find explicit "open problem" or "future work" statements.
Agent 2: What methods from adjacent fields haven't been applied to [topic]?
Agent 3: What assumptions does the [topic] literature make that might be wrong?

Save raw results to lab_notebook.md:

## Gap Analysis (raw)
### Untried approaches
<agent 1 results>

### Adjacent field transfers
<agent 2 results>

### Questionable assumptions
<agent 3 results>

Then present top 3 gaps as options:

"I found 3 gaps worth considering:

1. [Gap name] — [one sentence]. Feasibility risk: [one sentence]. 2. [Gap name] — [one sentence]. Feasibility risk: [one sentence]. 3. [Gap name] — [one sentence]. Feasibility risk: [one sentence].

Which one resonates? Or a different angle?"

Append their choice:

## Selected Gap
Gap: <their choice>
Why they chose it: <their reasoning>

Step 2 — Carlini gate as conversation

Ask one question at a time. Wait for each answer. Score internally (don't reveal yet).

---

Q1 — Taste:

"First — be honest: if someone solved this completely, would the field look meaningfully different? Or is this more of a nice-to-have?"

Append:

## Carlini Gate
### Taste (weight 0.30)
Question: Would solving this meaningfully change the field?
Researcher answer: <their answer>
Score: <0.0-1.0>
Reasoning: <why that score>

---

Q2 — Uniqueness:

"What can YOU specifically bring to this that others can't? Your background, timing, how you're framing it — what's your edge?"

Append:

### Uniqueness (weight 0.25)
Question: What is your comparative advantage?
Researcher answer: <their answer>
Score: <0.0-1.0>
Reasoning: <why that score>

---

Q3 — Impact:

"Write the best-case conclusion right now. If every experiment works perfectly — what does the paper say? Not 'X% improvement' — what changes about how people think?"

Append:

### Impact (weight 0.30)
Question: What is the best-case conclusion?
Researcher answer: <their answer>
Score: <0.0-1.0>
Reasoning: <why that score>

---

Q4 — Feasibility:

"Can you test the core claim with a single GPU in under a week? Describe the exact experiment."

Append:

### Feasibility (weight 0.15)
Question: What is the exact experiment?
Researcher answer: <their answer>
Score: <0.0-1.0>
Reasoning: <why that score>

Step 3 — Score and verdict

Calculate and show:

Taste:       X.XX  × 0.30 = X.XX
Uniqueness:  X.XX  × 0.25 = X.XX
Impact:      X.XX  × 0.30 = X.XX
Feasibility: X.XX  × 0.15 = X.XX
─────────────────────────────────
Overall:     X.XX

Append to lab_notebook.md:

### Final Score
Taste: X.XX | Uniqueness: X.XX | Impact: X.XX | Feasibility: X.XX
Overall: X.XX
Verdict: <promising / conditional / skip>
Weakest axis: <which one and why>

If ≥ 0.70:

"Strong signal. Ready to run parallel discovery lanes? → /discover"

If 0.50–0.69:

"Promising but [weakest axis] is the weak point. [One sentence on what would strengthen it.] Proceed anyway, or work on that first?"

If < 0.50:

"Honest take: not strong enough yet. Main problem is [weakest axis]. Want to try a different gap, or reframe the approach?"

Update lab_notebook.md status:

## Status
<date>: Carlini gate result: <verdict>. Next: <what to do>