scientific-brainstorming – Data & Science skill for AI agents

Scientific Brainstorming

Purpose and boundaries

Use this skill to create, organize, challenge, and transparently prioritize

candidate research directions. Treat every output as a proposal, not a

finding. Creativity methods can alter participation and idea yield, but no

method universally improves originality, usefulness, or scientific validity.

The evidence base and its limits are summarized in

references/sources.md.

Keep these activities separate:

• Ideation creates questions, mechanisms, alternatives, or study concepts.
• Evidence assessment checks what reliable literature and data support.
• Hypothesis validation requires observations, predictions, suitable

designs, analyses, and independent scrutiny; brainstorming cannot validate a

hypothesis.

• Ethics, biosafety, dual-use, regulatory, and institutional review require

the relevant authorized reviewers. A brainstorm is never approval.

• Clinical advice requires qualified clinicians and patient-specific

context. Do not turn research ideas into diagnosis or treatment guidance.

For an observation-led testable hypothesis, hand off to

hypothesis-generation. For study architecture, use experimental-design;

for sample size, statistical-power; for existing evidence,

literature-review; and for analysis, statistical-analysis.

Operating rules

1. Label claims as idea, assumption, prediction, **located

evidence, or decision**. Never blur these categories.

2. Generate independently before exposing participants to other people's or

AI-generated ideas. Face-to-face turn-taking can block production, and

examples can anchor later output.

3. Preserve minority views, negative evidence, uncertainty, and abstentions.

Consensus is not truth and vote counts are not effect sizes.

4. Record provenance without exposing confidential, personal, controlled, or

unpublished information.

5. Define evaluation criteria and directions before scoring. Keep raw ratings,

reasons, ranges, and disagreement visible.

6. Search the literature after an initial independent round when practical,

then deliberately reopen ideation. This reduces early anchoring without

mistaking an incomplete search for a research gap.

7. Do not automatically select a “winner.” Scores are traceable decision aids;

qualitative judgment, uncertainty, feasibility, and ethics gates remain

controlling.

Reproducible workflow

1. Scope the session

Write one focal question and record:

• purpose, audience, decision owner, and time horizon;
• in-scope and out-of-scope topics;
• constraints that are real, assumed, negotiable, or unknown;
• current knowledge, unresolved observations, and prohibited outputs;
• whether human participants, animals, clinical care, sensitive data,

pathogens, controlled technologies, or environmental release could be

implicated.

If the request seeks patient-specific care, evasion of oversight, harmful

optimization, or operationally enabling dual-use details, stop ideation and

route to the appropriate professional or institutional process.

2. Diversify perspectives deliberately

Invite relevant methodological, domain, implementation, statistical, safety,

ethics, stakeholder, and lived-experience perspectives. Diversity is not a

guarantee of creativity: explain whose perspective is represented, missing, or

structurally disadvantaged. Use accessible participation modes and

pseudonymous participant IDs where appropriate.

The facilitator should disclose conflicts, avoid offering a preferred answer

first, prevent senior members from dominating, and ask leaders to contribute

after the independent round.

3. Generate independently

Give everyone the same neutral prompt, constraints, and fixed time window.

Participants write ideas privately and in parallel before discussion. For each

idea, capture:

• a stable ID and one-sentence statement;
• contributor ID(s) and stage (independent, discussion, or post-check);
• origin (human, AI-assisted, literature-inspired, mixed, or other);
• assumptions, predicted observations, uncertainties, and possible

disconfirming evidence;

• source identifiers for literature-inspired ideas and tool/purpose disclosure

for AI assistance.

Do not show example solutions before this round unless examples are necessary;

if they are, record them as potential anchors.

4. Share without immediate evaluation

Use round-robin or pooled silent sharing. Clarify wording without advocacy.

Permit a private or anonymous channel. Ask each participant what is missing,

what contradicts the dominant framing, and which idea became less obvious

after hearing the group.

5. Cluster structurally

Group ideas by an explicit relation such as shared outcome, mechanism,

population, scale, or method. Keep original IDs and text. Record merges and

splits. Similar wording is not proof of semantic equivalence; retain distinct

ideas when their assumptions, intervention, population, or predictions differ.

See references/facilitation_workflows.md.

6. Define transparent criteria

Before rating, define each criterion, direction, scale anchors, evidence

needed, conflicts, and explicit weights. Common dimensions include:

• potential information gain and discriminating predictions;
• relevance to the scoped question;
• originality relative to the checked literature, not merely to the room;
• feasibility, resources, and reversibility;
• methodological rigor and vulnerability to bias;
• ethics, safety, equity, dual-use, and regulatory burden;
• value if the result is null or contradicts the favored mechanism.

Use ranges or confidence labels where assessors are uncertain. Do not hide

vetoes inside an averaged score. See references/idea_evaluation.md.

7. Run adversarial review

Assign a reviewer who did not originate each shortlisted idea. Ask:

• What observation would make this idea wrong or uninformative?
• Which alternative explanation fits the same predicted result?
• What hidden dependency, measurement failure, confounder, or selection effect

could dominate?

• Are authority, anchoring, group loyalty, publication incentives, or an

attractive technology driving preference?

• Could this cause harm, worsen inequity, expose sensitive information, or

enable misuse?

Record the response, mitigation, residual uncertainty, and whether the idea was

revised—not just pass/fail.

8. Check literature and evidence

Search authoritative databases, primary studies, methods guidance, negative

results, and adjacent fields. Verify every citation at its source. For each

idea, record query/date, sources screened, evidence for and against, and search

limits. Use statuses such as not-checked, search-incomplete,

support-located, challenge-located, or mixed.

Absence from a bounded search does not establish novelty, and supportive

literature does not validate a new mechanism. Reopen one short independent

generation round after the evidence check.

9. Apply feasibility, rigor, and ethics gates

Before advancing an idea, identify the appropriate domain review:

• For biomedical work, consider rigor of prior research, robust design,

relevant biological variables, and resource authentication. When NIH policy

applies, sex as a biological variable should be considered from the research

question through design, analysis, and reporting; justify a single-sex scope

with relevant evidence.

• Route human-subjects, animal, biosafety, data-governance, export-control,

clinical, environmental, and other regulated work to the relevant office.

• Screen life-science and enabling-technology ideas for dual-use or misuse

potential early. The U.S. High-Risk Life Sciences Policy issued 20 July 2026

replaces the 2024 DURC/PEPP policy; consult the institution and current

agency implementation rather than reusing the old checklist.

• Do not upload sensitive, unpublished, proprietary, controlled, or personal

information to an external AI service.

An ethics or feasibility concern may require redesign, controlled handling, or

stopping. A high creativity score never overrides a gate.

10. Decide and log

The accountable human decision owner records:

• candidates considered and criteria/weights used;
• raw ratings, uncertainty ranges, dissent, abstentions, and sensitivity

results;

• literature and review dates;
• gate outcomes and required approvals;
• decision, rationale, rejected alternatives, unresolved risks, owner, and

revisit trigger.

Label the next action correctly: further search, consultation, simulation,

pilot design, protocol development, preregistration, or no action. If a

confirmatory study is planned, preregister hypotheses and analysis decisions

before outcomes are known; report later deviations and exploratory work

transparently. Preregistration improves transparency but is not peer review,

ethical approval, or proof of validity. For ideas generated after inspe

… (full content is in the download package)