research-proposal

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha d77a3a8c44da · 22 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherluwill GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderluwill/research-skills/research-proposalThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNot declaredAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdictd77a3a8c44daA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 11 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Use when the user asks to write or draft a PhD / doctoral research proposal, research plan, 研究计划书, or 开题报告 — a forward-looking plan of background, gap, research questions, methodology, timeline, and significance, in…

---
name: research-proposal
description: >
  Use when the user asks to write or draft a PhD / doctoral research proposal,
  research plan, 研究计划书, or 开题报告 — a forward-looking plan of background,
  gap, research questions, methodology, timeline, and significance, in English or
  Chinese. Triggers: "write a research proposal", "PhD proposal", "doctoral
  proposal", "研究计划书", "开题报告", "写博士研究计划". The literature-corpus half
  of 开题报告 (exhaustive, reproducible retrieval with recall evidence) belongs
  to the lit-search skill; this skill consumes its outputs (dois.md /
  references.md — the default formatted list; references.bib only when lit-search ran
  with --bibtex). Not for backward-looking literature reviews / 综述 / surveys
  (use medical-imaging-review). For grant applications (国自然/NSF) it drafts and
  structures the CONTENT (立项依据/研究内容/...) but never fills a funder's own
  form system or budget tables.
metadata:
  author: user
  version: "2.0.1"
allowed-tools:
  - WebSearch
  - WebFetch
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - AskUserQuestion
  - Glob
  - Grep
  - Bash
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_search_items
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_get_item_metadata
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_get_item_fulltext
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_get_annotations
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_get_notes
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_semantic_search
  - mcp__zotero__zotero_advanced_search
---

# Research Proposal Generator

Generate a forward-looking academic research proposal — a plan for research not yet done — following flagship academic writing conventions, in English or Chinese.

This skill produces the **first draft correctly**, not a template to be fixed later. Its single most important discipline is citation integrity: a proposal with a fabricated reference is an academic-integrity problem, not a style problem. Read [references/CITATION_INTEGRITY.md](references/CITATION_INTEGRITY.md) before Phase 2.

## Core Principles

**Prose first.** Proposals read as flowing, connected paragraphs — not bulleted lists. Reserve lists for a focused set of research questions/objectives (2–4 items) and timeline milestones. Never enumerate contributions, methodology, background, or significance as bullets; narrate them. Full rules and examples: [references/WRITING_STYLE_GUIDE.md](references/WRITING_STYLE_GUIDE.md).

**Every citation verified before it is committed.** Reference count follows the argument, never a quota — there is no minimum. A PhD proposal typically cites 25–50 sources (humanities often more); a tightly argued 25 beats a padded 45. Every reference must exist (DOI/PMID/arXiv resolves, or Zotero metadata), with author and year matching the source, before it enters the proposal. Unverifiable references are flagged `[UNVERIFIED]` and disclosed — never fabricated. See [references/CITATION_INTEGRITY.md](references/CITATION_INTEGRITY.md).

**Write with verification, not one-shot.** Draft section by section; verify each section's citations before moving to the next (Phase 4). Do not generate a full multi-section proposal with dozens of citations in a single pass — that is the structural cause of hallucinated references.

**Hedge to the evidence.** Use tentative language ("aims to", "may", "is expected to") for proposed work and uncertain claims; state well-established facts plainly. Do not over-claim ("will prove", "revolutionize").

**Avoid the LLM tells.** These phrases are AI-detector signatures — strip them: "Over the past decade, X has emerged as...", "In recent years,", "It is worth noting that", "plays a crucial/pivotal role", "has garnered significant attention", "delves into", "a testament to"; 中文: "近年来,随着......的飞速发展", "......日益受到广泛关注". Write specific openings grounded in the actual field instead of generic scene-setting.

## Scenario Routing

The default structure below targets **PhD/doctoral proposals and academic research plans** (Abstract → Introduction → Literature Review → Methodology → Timeline → Significance). Confirm the scenario in Phase 1 and adapt:

| Request | Structure |
|---|---|
| PhD/doctoral proposal, research plan, 研究计划书 | Default structure (this skill) |
| 开题报告 (thesis proposal / defense) | Default structure, but weight Literature Review more heavily and open Methodology with a **研究基础/可行性分析 (existing basis & feasibility)** subsection — the reviewer's prior work, preliminary results, and access to data/compute; keep methodology concrete |
| Humanities dissertation proposal | Default + a **Chapter Outline** section (see [references/DOMAIN_TEMPLATES.md](references/DOMAIN_TEMPLATES.md)) |
| 基金申请书 / 国自然 / NSF grant | **Different structure** (立项依据 / 研究内容与目标 / 研究方案与可行性 / 研究基础与工作条件). This skill drafts the *content* adapted to the funder's required sections — it does **not** fill the funder's own form system, budget tables, or NSF-specific fields (Intellectual Merit / Broader Impacts). Tell the user the default 5-section template is not a grant form; adapt headings to the funder's required template and confirm with the user before writing |

---

## Phase 1: Requirements Gathering

Use `AskUserQuestion` to collect:

- **Research topic / question** — core problem to investigate.
- **Scenario** — PhD proposal / 开题报告 / research plan / grant (routes structure, see above).
- **Academic domain** — STEM (and whether computational/ML — see [references/DOMAIN_TEMPLATES.md](references/DOMAIN_TEMPLATES.md)), Humanities, or Social Sciences.
- **Output language** — English or 中文.
- **Target word count** — default ~3,000 words; range 2,000–4,000 (humanities may extend to ~10,000).
- **Optional** — target institution/supervisor; existing materials or a Zotero library to draw on.

If the topic is too vague to scope a methodology, ask focused clarifying questions before proceeding. **Headless run** (no interactive user, e.g. called from another agent's pipeline): extract the requirements above from the calling prompt instead of asking, and record them as **locked assumptions** in the outline the way Phase 3 does — never invent a requirement the promp

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/luwill/research-skills
git -C research-skills checkout d77a3a8c44da

Works in

1. 2026-10-22
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source d77a3a8c44da

Questions about research-proposal

• github.com/luwill/research-skills/tree/main/research-proposal — the audited source at commit d77a3a8c44da and every finding aboveObserved · 22 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology