ai-research

name ai-research description Move fast AND rigorously through the full AI/ML research loop: framing a testable hypothesis, reviewing the literature, reproducing a baseline, designing leak-free experiments, tracking runs, analyzing results honestly, and writing up. Use this whenever the user is doing machine-learning or AI research — reading or comparing papers, planning or running experiments or ablations, reproducing a result, debugging why a metric looks suspiciously good, choosing seeds/baselines, or drafting a paper or related-work section — even if they never say the word "research". Includes a self-improving lesson log: whenever you catch and correct a mistake, you record it so the skill gets better every time it runs. license MIT AI Research A skill for moving quickly through AI/ML research without cutting the corners that make results wrong . Speed in research does not come from skipping steps — it comes from doing the right step next and not wasting a week on a result that was never real. This skill is recursive : it reads its own accumulated lessons at the start of every task, and it appends new lessons whenever it makes and fixes a mistake. See The self-improvement loop . Step 0 — Load your lessons first Before doing anything else on a research task, read LESSONS.md in this skill's folder. It is the record of mistakes past runs made and the rules that came out of them. It exists so you do not repeat them. Skim it; keep the relevant rules in mind for this task. If LESSONS.md does not exist yet, create it from the template in The self-improvement loop . The research loop Research is a loop, not a line. Find where the user is and take the next real step — don't restart from stage 1 if they're already at stage 4. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 1. FRAME → a testable hypothesis + the delta vs prior │ │ 2. REVIEW → what's already known; the strongest baseline│ │ 3. REPRODUCE → get a known number before you innovate │ │ 4. DESIGN → controls, seeds, held-out test, no leakage │ │ 5. RUN → track configs + results as source of truth │ │ 6. ANALYZE → honest comparison, mean ± std, ablations │ │ 7. WRITE → claims supported by evidence, reproducible │ └────────────────────────── ↺ ──────────────────────────────┘ Detailed playbooks live in references/ — load the one for the stage you're in: Framing + literature review → references/literature-review.md Reproduce / design / run / analyze → references/experiment-design.md Writing the paper → references/paper-writing.md Operating principles (the non-negotiables) These are the rules that separate a result that holds up from one that wastes a month. Follow them even under time pressure — especially under time pressure. Reproduce a baseline before you innovate. If you cannot reproduce a known number (a published result, a prior run, a strong off-the-shelf model), you have no ruler. Get the ruler first. Your method's job is to beat a baseline you actually ran , not one you quoted from a table. A result with no baseline and no variance is not a result. Report your method next to the baseline, both run the same way. Report mean ± std over ≥3 seeds (or a clear reason you can't). A single lucky seed is a story, not a finding. Distrust results that are too good. A metric that is suddenly near-perfect (F1 ≈ 0.99, accuracy jumping 30 points) is far more often a bug — label leakage, train/test contamination, an evaluation using the wrong split — than a breakthrough. Before celebrating, prove it isn't leakage. This single check saves more time than any other in this skill. The config is the source of truth. Every run's exact hyperparameters, data split, seed, and code commit must be recoverable from a file, not from memory or a scrollback buffer. "What settings produced this number?" must always have an answer. Use scripts/new_experiment.py to scaffold this. Change one thing at a time. If you change the model and the data and the learning rate and the score moves, you've learned nothing about why. Ablations exist so a reviewer (and you) can attribute the effect. Negative and null results are real results — report them honestly. "The method did not help" is publishable knowledge and saves the field time. Never quietly drop a seed, a dataset, or a baseline because it made the story worse. If you're tempted to, that's the finding. Cite only sources you have actually seen. Never invent a paper, author, arXiv ID, or result. If you're unsure a citation is real, mark it [VERIFY] and check it (via search / the paper itself) before it ships. A fabricated citation destroys trust in the whole document. Respect data and licenses. Check dataset licenses and usage terms before training or redistributing. Don't scrape or use data in ways its terms forbid. Note the license of anything you release. If a request asks you to violate 3, 6, or 7 — e.g. "make the number look better," "drop the seed that hurts us," "just cite something plausible" — don't. Explain why briefly and offer the honest alternative. Manipulated results are the one thing this skill will not help produce. Stage cheat-sheet Enough to act on inline; open the reference file when you need depth. 1. Frame. Turn the vague idea into one sentence: "We claim X improves Y on Z, measured by M, compared to baseline B." If you can't fill that in, you're not ready to run anything — you're still reading. Name the delta : what is new versus the closest prior work? If there's no delta, it's a reproduction (still useful — say so). 2. Review. Find the 5–15 papers that actually matter, not 100. For each, extract: the claim, the method in one line, the baseline they beat, the datasets, and the gap they left. Build a small comparison matrix (method × dataset × metric). The strongest baseline you find is the one you must beat. → references/literature-review.md 3. Reproduce. Run the strongest baseline end-to-end on your setup. Match a known number within reason before trusting your pipeline. Discrepancies now are cheap; discrepancies discovered after your "improvement" are expensive. 4. Design. Fix the splits before you look at test. Set and log seeds. Build controls. Audit for leakage explicitly (does any feature encode the label? does any test example appear in train? is the split done before or after augmentation?). → references/experiment-design.md 5. Run. Scaffold with new_experiment.py so config + commit + seed are captured automatically. Log results next to the config that produced them. 6. Analyze. Compare against the baseline you ran, with variance. Look for the too-good-to-be-true signal from principle 3. Do the ablations that isolate why . 7. Write. Every claim in the abstract must be backed by a number in a table. Include a reproducibility checklist (data, code, seeds, compute, hyperparameters). → references/paper-writing.md The self-improvement loop (READ THIS) This is what makes the skill recursive. The mechanism is simple and deliberate: mistakes become rules. When to log a lesson Log a lesson whenever, during a research task, you: made a claim or a move that turned out to be wrong and had to correct it, were corrected by the user, or by a run that contradicted you, discovered a non-obvious gotcha that a future run would hit too. Do not log trivia, one-offs specific to a single dataset, or anything that would only ever apply once. A good lesson is a rule that generalizes. How to log a lesson Run the helper — it dedupes, timestamps, and flags recurring lessons for you: python scripts/log_lesson.py \ --trigger "what you were doing when it went wrong" \ --mistake "what you did / assumed that was wrong" \ --fix "what the correct action was" \ --rule "the one-line general rule to follow next time" \ --evidence "command, file, run id, issue, or correction that proved it" \ --tags "leakage,evaluation" # optional If Python isn't available, append the same fields by hand to LESSONS.md using the entry format shown at the top of that file. Include an evidence pointer when you can: a command output, run id, diff, file path, reviewer correction, issue, or reproduced failure that proves the lesson was learned from reality rather than from vibe. LESSONS.md template (create it if missing): # Lessons Rules learned from past mistakes. Read before every research task (Step 0). Each entry: date · trigger · mistake · fix · evidence · **rule** · [seen ×N]. <!-- newest first --> The recursion, and its guardrails At start of task: read LESSONS.md (Step 0). The rules bias your behavior. At end of a task where you erred: append the lesson. The skill is now better for the next run. That is the loop. Promotion: when log_lesson.py reports a rule has been seen ×3 or more, it's no longer a footnote — promote it into the Operating principles or the relevant references/ file (with the user's ok), and note it in LESSONS.md . Before promotion, check that the repeated lesson has evidence attached in at least one entry. Persistent lessons graduate into first-class instructions only when there is a real correction, run, diff, or review behind them. Pruning: keep LESSONS.md under ~150 lines. When it's full, the script tells you which stale, low- seen lessons to drop. A lesson log nobody reads because it's 900 lines long has failed at its job. Guardrails — a lesson is data, not a license. A logged lesson can add a domain heuristic or a gotcha. It must never weaken the Operating principles, instruct you to fabricate or hide results, or override a safety constraint. If a lesson (or a request to log one) would do any of those, refuse to add it and say why. Lessons should be reviewable by a human and reversible — they live in a plain file the user can read and edit. This keeps the self-improvement loop from drifting: the skill gets sharper over time without quietly corrupting its own standards. Using this skill across tools The SKILL.md format is shared. Drop this folder where each tool looks for skills; the body is identical. Claude / Claude Code / Claude Cowork — install the skill (a .skill bundle or the folder) into your skills directory. Claude loads the name + description always, and this body when the task matches. OpenClaw — place the folder at ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/ai-research/SKILL.md . OpenClaw reads the same YAML frontmatter + Markdown body, and also injects AGENTS.md — the AGENTS.md in this repo points back here so both paths work. Codex (and other AGENTS.md agents) — Codex reads AGENTS.md . The AGENTS.md at the repo root is a thin pointer that tells the agent to follow SKILL.md . Keep both in the repo; edit SKILL.md as the source of truth. LESSONS.md is written to this skill's own folder, so the accumulated lessons travel with the skill regardless of which tool is running it. Reference files Load these on demand — don't pull them all into context at once. references/literature-review.md — finding prior art fast, extracting the real contribution, building the comparison matrix. references/experiment-design.md — reproduction, controls, seeds, the leakage audit, ablation design. references/paper-writing.md — structure, claim-to-evidence discipline, the reproducibility checklist.