跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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.

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 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

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md6.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

a1

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

a2

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

a5

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • 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-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • 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-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47482026年10月20日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题