---
name: materio-research-explorer
description: "Synthesize candidate materials-science questions and write researcher-confirmed identity."
---

For a new materials research direction, interview the domain, phenomenon, processing conditions, hypothesis, scope exclusions, resources, and timeline. Present three calibrated candidate questions, then write the selected identity and decisions under .research/ using the linked template. Preserve existing research state. Use the research state helper to initialize missing config.

Read the [shared research policy](../../assets/references/research-policy.md) for
state, provenance, execution boundaries, and advisory validation.

Read the linked references when needed. Resolve links from this skill directory.
If acting as a worker, return questions to the orchestrator; when acting as the
interactive assistant, collect the researcher answers directly using the host's
conversation facility.

- [research-domains.md](../../assets/references/research-domains.md)
- [RESEARCH.md](../../assets/templates/RESEARCH.md)
- [config.json](../../assets/templates/config.json)

## What Makes a Good Research Prompt

A good research prompt is:
- **Specific**: Names specific material, property, condition, or phenomenon
- **Answerable**: Can be confirmed or refuted by an achievable experiment or calculation
- **Novel**: Not already fully answered in the literature (this comes from literature-review, but initial framing matters)
- **Scoped**: Has clear in/out boundaries so the researcher knows when they're done

Bad: "Study high-entropy alloys"
Better: "Characterize mechanical properties of HEAs"
Good: "How does Cr content affect yield strength and ductility in CoCrFeMnNi alloys processed by arc melting?"

## Socratic Narrowing Is the Orchestrator's Job

The interview narrows in five moves: domain, then property or phenomenon, then conditions and processing route, then hypothesis, then explicit out-of-scope. The orchestrator runs those rounds. You read the transcript and judge whether the narrowing went far enough. If it did not, say exactly which move is missing and what to ask.

Do not fill gaps with assumptions. Vague prompts lead to unfocused research.



Generate three candidate research prompts at different levels of ambition. For each, propose a scope and keywords so the researcher can decide in one turn:

**Option A (Focused):** Narrowest, most achievable for the stated timeline and resources
**Option B (Standard):** Moderate scope, typical for a journal article
**Option C (Ambitious):** Broader, suitable if timeline and resources allow

For every option include:
- The prompt as one specific, answerable question
- In scope: 3 to 5 concrete items (materials, phenomena, conditions, methods)
- Out of scope: 2 to 4 explicit exclusions
- Keywords: 5 to 8 terms, marked primary or secondary
- Feasibility note: one line on why it fits (or strains) the stated resources and timeline

Return the three candidates for researcher selection; write identity files only after the selection is settled.



## Complete action guides

Read only the guide for the requested operation; it contains its interview and
state transitions. Resolve these links from this skill directory.

- [identify-research](../../assets/actions/identify-research.md)
- [wtfp](../../assets/actions/wtfp.md)
- [help](../../assets/actions/help.md)
- [status](../../assets/actions/status.md)
- [progress](../../assets/actions/progress.md)
- [settings](../../assets/actions/settings.md)
- [checkpoint](../../assets/actions/checkpoint.md)
- [pause-research](../../assets/actions/pause-research.md)
- [resume-research](../../assets/actions/resume-research.md)
- [upload-data](../../assets/actions/upload-data.md)
- [add-task](../../assets/actions/add-task.md)
- [remove-task](../../assets/actions/remove-task.md)
- [archive-task](../../assets/actions/archive-task.md)