本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

data-finder

Find and assess datasets for a research question. Dispatches Explorer agents to search across data source categories, then Explorer-Critic to stress-test each candidate. Produces a ranked list with feasibility grades. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to identify or evaluate data sources — not to search for papers or run analysis. Triggers include: "find data", "what data should I use", "find a dataset for this", "where can I get data on X", "assess datasets", "what datasets exist for", "help me find data", "is there data on this", "what are my data options", "I need data for this project", or any request to locate empirical data sources for a research question.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Data Finder

Find and assess datasets for your research question. Two Explorer agents search in parallel across data source categories; an Explorer-Critic then stress-tests each candidate against the research design.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — a topic, or from spec to read the research question from quality_reports/.


Step 1: Read Research Context

  1. Find the most recent quality_reports/project_spec_*.md or quality_reports/specs/*.md — extract:

    • Research question
    • Empirical strategy (DiD, RDD, IV, etc.)
    • Treatment variable (what varies)
    • Outcome variable (what we measure)
    • Controls needed
    • Time period of interest
    • Geography (national, state, county, individual)
    • Unit of observation (individual, household, firm, establishment)
  2. Read references/domain-profile.md if it exists — extract the Common Datasets section (domain-specific datasets to check first).

  3. If no research spec exists, extract the variables and strategy from $ARGUMENTS directly. If the request is vague, ask: "What are the treatment and outcome variables, and what empirical strategy did you have in mind?"


Step 2: Dispatch Two Explorer Agents in Parallel

Split the source categories between two Explorer agents to parallelize the search.

Explorer A — Institutional Data:

Task prompt: "You are an Explorer agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].
Domain datasets (check first): [list from domain-profile if available].

Your source categories to search:
1. Public microdata (CPS, ACS, NHIS, MEPS, SIPP, QWI)
2. Administrative data (Medicare/Medicaid, IRS, SSA, vital statistics, court records)
3. Survey panels (PSID, HRS, Add Health, NLSY97/79, BHPS/UKHLS)

For each dataset found, produce the full Explorer report format.
Follow the Explorer agent instructions."

Explorer B — Broader and Alternative Sources:

Task prompt: "You are an Explorer agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].
Domain datasets (check first): [list from domain-profile if available].

Your source categories to search:
1. International data (World Bank, OECD, Eurostat, IMF, IPUMS International)
2. Novel/alternative (satellite, web scraping, proprietary, RCT registries)
3. Any field-specific datasets not covered by Explorer A

For each dataset found, produce the full Explorer report format.
Follow the Explorer agent instructions."

Step 3: Dispatch Explorer-Critic

After both Explorer agents complete, dispatch the Explorer-Critic with the full combined dataset list.

Task prompt: "You are an Explorer-Critic agent. Research question: [question].
Empirical strategy: [strategy].
Variables needed — Treatment: [X], Outcome: [Y], Controls: [list],
Time period: [period], Geography: [geo], Unit: [unit].

Here is the combined dataset list from the Explorer agents:
[paste all Explorer findings]

Apply the 5-point critique to each dataset:
1. Measurement validity
2. Sample selection
3. External validity
4. Identification compatibility
5. Known issues

Produce adjusted feasibility grades and deal-breaker flags.
Follow the Explorer-Critic agent instructions."

Step 4: Produce Ranked Output

After the Explorer-Critic completes, compile the final ranked report:

  1. Sort datasets by adjusted feasibility grade (A first, then B, then C, then D).
  2. Within each grade, sort by identification compatibility score (highest first).
  3. Separate out deal-breaker datasets into the rejection table.

Step 5: Save Report

Save to quality_reports/data_exploration_[sanitized_topic].md:

# Data Exploration: [Topic]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Research question:** [one sentence]
**Empirical strategy:** [method]
**Variables sought:** Treatment = [X], Outcome = [Y], Controls = [list]

---

## Top Candidates (Grade A–B)

### 1. [Dataset Name] — Grade: A/B

**Provider:** [Name] | **Access:** [Public/Restricted/etc.] | **URL:** [link]

**Coverage:** [time period] | [geography] | [unit of observation] | N ≈ [size]

**Key Variables:**
- Treatment proxy: [variable]
- Outcome: [variable]
- Controls available: [list]

**Explorer-Critic Assessment:**
- Measurement validity: [1-2 sentences]
- Sample selection: [1-2 sentences]
- External validity: [1-2 sentences]
- Identification compatibility: [focused on the proposed strategy]
- Known issues: [specific documented problems]

**Bottom line:** [1-2 sentences — viable and under what conditions]

---

[Repeat for all A and B grade datasets]

---

## Accessible With Effort (Grade C)

[Brief summaries — name, access path, main limitation, why C not B]

---

## Rejection Table

| Dataset | Reason for Rejection | Deal-breaker? |
|---------|---------------------|---------------|
| [Name] | [Explorer-Critic finding] | YES/NO |

---

## Recommended Path Forward

1. **Best dataset:** [Name] — [one sentence why]
2. **Fallback if [best] unavailable:** [Name] — [why it's second choice]
3. **Access steps for [best]:** [specific actions needed — download link, application URL, IRB requirements]

---

## Next Steps

- **`/data-analysis [dataset]`** — begin analysis with the recommended dataset
- **`/lit-review [topic]`** — check if papers in the literature use these datasets (helps validate choice)

Important

  • Identification compatibility is the most important criterion. A perfectly accessible dataset that can't support the proposed empirical strategy is useless. The Explorer-Critic's grade on this dimension should drive the recommendation.
  • Access level affects timeline. An FSRDC dataset may take 1-2 years to access. A public download can start today. Make this tradeoff explicit.
  • Don't reject C-grade datasets outright. A FSRDC dataset with perfect identification fit may be the right choice for a dissertation. Present the access path clearly.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a1

無料

VS-Enhanced Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

a2

無料

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

a5

無料

Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5652026年10月5日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する