본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

data-finder

Find datasets for a research question and compare whether they support the planned study. Receive ranked candidates with feasibility grades, coverage, access requirements, methodological limitations, and recommended next steps for obtaining the most suitable data.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

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.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Find datasets for a research question
  • Check whether data supports the planned research method
  • Compare access requirements and waiting times
  • Choose a primary dataset and a fallback

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md6.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

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.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

a1

무료

Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

a2

무료

Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

a5

무료

Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고