--- name: Research Interview slug: research-interview category: AI Engineering description: "Research Interview asks clarifying questions one at a time to turn a fuzzy research idea into a structured spec covering research question, hypotheses, identification, data needs, and empirical strategy. Use it when you say \"interview me\" or need help formalizing a half-baked research idea into a project." github: "https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/tree/main/.claude/skills/interview-me" language: HTML stars: 1509 forks: 2943 install: "npx degit https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/tree/main/.claude/skills/interview-me ~/.claude/skills/interview-me" installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/interview-me source_path: .claude/skills/interview-me/SKILL.md collection_size: 25 category_size: 2451 collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow" added: 2026-08-19T07:26:49.869Z last_synced: 2026-08-19T07:26:49.869Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/research-interview" --- # Research Interview Research Interview asks clarifying questions one at a time to turn a fuzzy research idea into a structured spec covering research question, hypotheses, identification, data needs, and empirical strategy. Use it when you say "interview me" or need help formalizing a half-baked research idea into a project. **Install:** ```bash npx degit https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/tree/main/.claude/skills/interview-me ~/.claude/skills/interview-me ``` ## README # Research Interview Conduct a structured interview to help formalize a research idea into a concrete specification. **Input:** `$ARGUMENTS` — a brief topic description or "start fresh" for an open-ended exploration. --- ## How This Works This is a **conversational** skill. Instead of producing a report immediately, you conduct an interview by asking questions one at a time, probing deeper based on answers, and building toward a structured research specification. **Do NOT use AskUserQuestion.** Ask questions directly in your text responses, one or two at a time. Wait for the user to respond before continuing. --- ## Interview Structure ### Phase 1: The Big Picture (1-2 questions) - "What phenomenon or puzzle are you trying to understand?" - "Why does this matter? Who should care about the answer?" - After the user answers, optionally ask: "Do you have a sense of what *kind* of paper this would be — reduced-form / structural / theory+empirics / descriptive / formal-theory / survey-experiment / unsure?" (See `.claude/agents/methods-referee.md` for the type definitions and `.claude/references/discipline-cards.md` for field-default frequencies.) Record the answer in the saved spec under the `**Paper type:**` header field; "unsure" is fine and is recorded as `**Paper type:** unsure`. ### Phase 2: Theoretical Motivation (1-2 questions) - "What's your intuition for why X happens / what drives Y?" - "What would standard theory predict? Do you expect something different?" ### Phase 3: Data and Setting (1-2 questions) - "What data do you have access to, or what data would you ideally want?" - "Is there a specific context, time period, or institutional setting you're focused on?" ### Phase 4: Identification (1-2 questions) - "Is there a natural experiment, policy change, or source of variation you can exploit?" - "What's the biggest threat to a causal interpretation?" ### Phase 5: Expected Results (1-2 questions) - "What would you expect to find? What would surprise you?" - "What would the results imply for policy or theory?" ### Phase 6: Contribution (1 question) - "How does this differ from what's already been done? What's the gap you're filling?" --- ## After the Interview Once you have enough information (typically 5-8 exchanges), produce a **Research Specification Document**: ```markdown # Research Specification: [Title] **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] **Researcher:** [from conversation context] **Paper type:** [reduced-form | structural | theory+empirics | descriptive | formal-theory | survey-experiment | unsure] ## Research Question [Clear, specific question in one sentence] ## Motivation [2-3 paragraphs: why this matters, theoretical context, policy relevance] ## Hypothesis [Testable prediction with expected direction] ## Empirical Strategy - **Method:** [e.g., Difference-in-Differences with staggered adoption] - **Treatment:** [What varies] - **Control:** [Comparison group] - **Key identifying assumption:** [What must hold] - **Robustness checks:** [Pre-trends, placebo tests, etc.] ## Data - **Primary dataset:** [Name, source, coverage] - **Key variables:** [Treatment, outcome, controls] - **Sample:** [Unit of observation, time period, N] ## Expected Results [What the researcher expects to find and why] ## Contribution [How this advances the literature — 2-3 sentences] ## Open Questions [Issues raised during the interview that need further thought] ``` **Save to:** `quality_reports/research_spec_[sanitized_topic].md` --- ## Post-Flight Verification (mandatory, CoVe — applies when the spec cites prior work) The research spec's **Motivation** and **Contribution** sections typically reference prior papers by author + year. Those citations are hallucination-prone. Before saving the spec, run the Post-Flight Verification protocol from [`.claude/rules/post-flight-verification.md`](../../rules/post-flight-verification.md) if the spec contains any citations. ### Steps (skip if the spec cites zero papers) 1. **Extract claims:** every paper-citation in the Motivation / Contribution sections ("Smith 2019 shows X"), any dataset-structure claims ("the CPS has field `educ_attain`"), any negative-literature assertions ("nobody has studied Y"). 2. **Generate verification questions:** specific, answerable questions per claim. "Does Smith (2019, *JEL*) Section 3 report finding X? Is the venue correct?" 3. **Spawn `claim-verifier`** via `Task` with `subagent_type=claim-verifier` and `context=fork`. Hand it the claims + questions + source pointers (DOIs, arXiv links, `master_supporting_docs/` PDFs if the user provided any during the interview). Do NOT include the drafted spec. 4. **Reconcile:** PASS → attach green block to the spec. PARTIAL → mark unverifiable citations with uncertainty flags. FAIL → rewrite the affected paragraph using the verifier's evidence before saving the spec. ### Skip conditions - Spec contains zero paper citations (pure-methodology specs with no lit references). - `--no-verify` flag. - The user explicitly said during the interview "I'll verify the literature myself." --- ## Decision records (when tradeoffs surface) If during the interview the researcher explicitly chose among alternatives — identification strategy (DiD vs IV vs RDD), data source (admin vs survey), outcome measure, sample scope, etc. — also write an ADR-style **decision record** for each choice. Use [`templates/decision-record.md`](../../../templates/decision-record.md) and save to `quality_reports/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD_[short-topic].md`. Required fields: Status / Problem / Options considered / Decision + rationale / Consequences / Rejected alternatives. Skip the ADR if the interview produced a single uncontested direction — ADRs are for *decisions with live alternatives*, not for announcing the default path. --- ## Interview Style - **Be curious, not prescriptive.** Your job is to draw out the researcher's thinking, not impose your own ideas. - **Probe weak spots gently.** If the identification strategy sounds fragile, ask "What would a skeptic say about...?" rather than "This won't work because..." - **Build on answers.** Each question should follow from the previous response. - **Know when to stop.** If the researcher has a clear vision after 4-5 exchanges, move to the specification. Don't over-interview.