# Scientific Problem Selection

Evaluate and prioritize research questions by importance, novelty, tractability...

- Repository: https://github.com/KunAgent/Kun (6362 stars)
- Category: Writing
- License: see repository
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add KunAgent/Kun --skill scientific-problem-selection -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add KunAgent/Kun --skill scientific-problem-selection -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add KunAgent/Kun --skill scientific-problem-selection -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add KunAgent/Kun --skill scientific-problem-selection -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

Evaluate and prioritize research questions by importance, novelty, tractability, evidence, resources, ethics, and falsifiability.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Scientific Problem Selection
Copyright (c) 2026 KunAgent. Licensed under the MIT License.

## Purpose
Evaluate and prioritize research questions by importance, novelty, tractability, evidence, resources, ethics, and falsifiability.

## Tool routing
| Tool or skill | Use |
|---|---|
| `web_fetch` | Retrieve public papers, datasets, calls, or standards. |
| `browser_use` | Inspect public literature and research portals. |
| `render_chart` | Compare candidate problems using structured criteria. |
| `load_skill` | Load the scholarly-research skill for a dedicated literature review. |

## Workflow
1. Define field, decision horizon, available methods, resources, and constraints.
2. Express each candidate as a falsifiable question with a measurable outcome.
3. Map current evidence, competing explanations, and decisive experiments.
4. Score importance, novelty, tractability, risk, ethics, and learning value.
5. Choose a portfolio with a lead problem and fallback path.

## Completion gates
- Verify novelty claims against current literature.
- Identify required sample size, data access, and ethical approvals.
- State what result would change the research direction.

## Boundaries
- Do not equate fashionable topics with important questions.
- Do not recommend work that lacks a plausible ethical and resource path.

## Delivery
Lead with the outcome, name the evidence used for verification, and disclose any real limitation that remains.