STEM PhD Topic Diagnostician
Assess rigor, novelty, feasibility, and fixes
Description
Already have a PhD dissertation topic but unsure whether it is rigorous, innovative, and feasible? This Skill is designed to diagnose existing topics—not randomly generate topics from scratch or merely polish the wording. It breaks down the research subject, core variables, mechanisms, outcome measures, and research boundaries in your topic. Based on the Chinese and English literature, experimental foundation, samples, methods, equipment, timeline, and budget you provide, it assesses the topic’s rigor, novelty, and feasibility, while identifying risks such as “innovation” based only on changing materials, confounded variables, insufficient evidence for the proposed mechanism, an uncontrolled sample matrix, and chapters that cannot build progressively. The final output is a STEM PhD Topic Health Check Report, which clearly recommends whether to: retain the topic with minor adjustments; retain the research subject while strengthening its dimensions; retain the research problem and reconstruct the subject; or stop patching and redesign the topic. It is intended for STEM PhD students in food science, chemistry, materials science, biology, basic medical sciences, environmental science, agriculture, energy, and engineering. It is especially useful for those preparing a proposal defense, revising a topic at an advisor’s request, who have already defended their proposal but lack a clear central thread, or who have existing experiments but are unsure whether they can support an entire PhD dissertation.
Related Skills
View all
STEM PhD Topic Designer
Designed for PhD students in food science, chemistry, materials science, biology, environmental science, agriculture, and engineering. Through a six-step process—locking down the research object, identifying core variables, scanning titles, calibrating with abstracts, extracting gaps, and building a research-question chain—it turns a vague direction, an advisor-assigned topic, or scattered experiments into a defensible, actionable final PhD topic report. Rather than simply generating batches of topics, it identifies risks such as mixed variables, overcrowded research dimensions, expanding experimental scope, and overstated mechanistic claims. At each key stage, it waits for you to confirm, revise, or reject its suggestions, preserving the judgment that truly belongs to the researcher.
Proposal Readiness Checker
Before you spend dozens of hours writing your thesis, take ten minutes to run a structured checkup. This skill does only one thing: It diagnoses, not writes. It tells you whether your topic can hold up, whether your materials are sufficient, what's missing, where to fill the gaps, and in what order. Then it gives you an actionable missing-material checklist and search queries. It will not write your introduction, literature review, methods, or discussion. Four steps: 1. Discipline diagnosis: Classify your work into 1A Humanities/Arts, 1B Social Sciences, 2A Science/Engineering, or 2B Agriculture/Medicine/Life Sciences, and load the corresponding regulatory red lines; 2B triggers a mandatory ethics review block. 2. Topic checkup: Examine the topic from three dimensions—momentum, shape, and wording—to judge whether the research unit can be operationalized, whether the research question can be answered, and whether the topic has been done to death. 3. Material checkup: Register your existing literature into an M1/M2… material library, verify each entry against the four elements (author/year/title/verifiable locator), and compute the true coverage rate. 4. Gap list and search queries: Specify how many papers of what type are missing and which piece of evidence is lacking, and provide search queries ready to paste into databases (including Boolean keyword combinations, time ranges, and screening criteria). When to use it (trigger phrases): "Help me check my proposal" "Can this topic work?" "Do I have enough literature?" "My proposal was sent back" "I want to confirm before starting to write" — for graduate students who have just set a direction but haven't started writing; for those whose proposal was rejected but don't know why; for those with a pile of literature but unsure if it's enough to begin; for those wanting to confirm whether the topic is worth the investment before committing fully. Deliverables: A Proposal Checkup Report document + a Five-Source Readiness Scorecard (each level has behavioral criteria, not vague scoring) + a prioritized list of missing materials + search queries + an archive code. The archive code is compatible with the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.0; after the checkup, paste it there to continue writing without re-stating your discipline, topic, or journal. What this skill explicitly does not do: It does not write the main text, generate reference lists, or fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, pages, or DOIs. Any literature found via online search is flagged with ⚠️ "needs verification" and must be verified by you before use. This skill does not promise any acceptance or passing outcome.
WriteAcademic Research Question
• Diagnose candidate topics: Identify overly broad topics, unclear subjects, uncontrolled boundaries, and false novelty before determining whether the topic is ready to be finalized. • Narrow the research scope: Remove nonessential subjects, variables, and objectives to reduce “trying to study everything” to one central question. • Derive the core question: Identify a single research direction based on subject clarity, question sharpness, scope control, and fit with available materials. • Generate a standardized title: Produce one Chinese title aligned with the research question, with an English title and a specific contribution statement when needed. After opening, say: “I have 3 candidate topics and want to submit to a CSSCI journal. Help me finalize the topic.” It will first check the research subject, core question, scope, and practical constraints, then provide a well-supported final research question. If information is insufficient, it will ask follow-up questions instead of forcing a polished title. Suitable for: Researchers with candidate topics who are struggling to choose one / scholars who need to focus quickly before submission / anyone who does not want to be rejected by a reviewer’s one-line criticism that the research question is unclear. ✅ This version has undergone two months of refinement, testing, and iteration.
STEM PhD Topic Diagnostician
Assess rigor, novelty, feasibility, and fixes
Description
Already have a PhD dissertation topic but unsure whether it is rigorous, innovative, and feasible? This Skill is designed to diagnose existing topics—not randomly generate topics from scratch or merely polish the wording. It breaks down the research subject, core variables, mechanisms, outcome measures, and research boundaries in your topic. Based on the Chinese and English literature, experimental foundation, samples, methods, equipment, timeline, and budget you provide, it assesses the topic’s rigor, novelty, and feasibility, while identifying risks such as “innovation” based only on changing materials, confounded variables, insufficient evidence for the proposed mechanism, an uncontrolled sample matrix, and chapters that cannot build progressively. The final output is a STEM PhD Topic Health Check Report, which clearly recommends whether to: retain the topic with minor adjustments; retain the research subject while strengthening its dimensions; retain the research problem and reconstruct the subject; or stop patching and redesign the topic. It is intended for STEM PhD students in food science, chemistry, materials science, biology, basic medical sciences, environmental science, agriculture, energy, and engineering. It is especially useful for those preparing a proposal defense, revising a topic at an advisor’s request, who have already defended their proposal but lack a clear central thread, or who have existing experiments but are unsure whether they can support an entire PhD dissertation.
Related Skills
View allSTEM PhD Topic Designer
Designed for PhD students in food science, chemistry, materials science, biology, environmental science, agriculture, and engineering. Through a six-step process—locking down the research object, identifying core variables, scanning titles, calibrating with abstracts, extracting gaps, and building a research-question chain—it turns a vague direction, an advisor-assigned topic, or scattered experiments into a defensible, actionable final PhD topic report. Rather than simply generating batches of topics, it identifies risks such as mixed variables, overcrowded research dimensions, expanding experimental scope, and overstated mechanistic claims. At each key stage, it waits for you to confirm, revise, or reject its suggestions, preserving the judgment that truly belongs to the researcher.
Proposal Readiness Checker
Before you spend dozens of hours writing your thesis, take ten minutes to run a structured checkup. This skill does only one thing: It diagnoses, not writes. It tells you whether your topic can hold up, whether your materials are sufficient, what's missing, where to fill the gaps, and in what order. Then it gives you an actionable missing-material checklist and search queries. It will not write your introduction, literature review, methods, or discussion. Four steps: 1. Discipline diagnosis: Classify your work into 1A Humanities/Arts, 1B Social Sciences, 2A Science/Engineering, or 2B Agriculture/Medicine/Life Sciences, and load the corresponding regulatory red lines; 2B triggers a mandatory ethics review block. 2. Topic checkup: Examine the topic from three dimensions—momentum, shape, and wording—to judge whether the research unit can be operationalized, whether the research question can be answered, and whether the topic has been done to death. 3. Material checkup: Register your existing literature into an M1/M2… material library, verify each entry against the four elements (author/year/title/verifiable locator), and compute the true coverage rate. 4. Gap list and search queries: Specify how many papers of what type are missing and which piece of evidence is lacking, and provide search queries ready to paste into databases (including Boolean keyword combinations, time ranges, and screening criteria). When to use it (trigger phrases): "Help me check my proposal" "Can this topic work?" "Do I have enough literature?" "My proposal was sent back" "I want to confirm before starting to write" — for graduate students who have just set a direction but haven't started writing; for those whose proposal was rejected but don't know why; for those with a pile of literature but unsure if it's enough to begin; for those wanting to confirm whether the topic is worth the investment before committing fully. Deliverables: A Proposal Checkup Report document + a Five-Source Readiness Scorecard (each level has behavioral criteria, not vague scoring) + a prioritized list of missing materials + search queries + an archive code. The archive code is compatible with the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.0; after the checkup, paste it there to continue writing without re-stating your discipline, topic, or journal. What this skill explicitly does not do: It does not write the main text, generate reference lists, or fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, pages, or DOIs. Any literature found via online search is flagged with ⚠️ "needs verification" and must be verified by you before use. This skill does not promise any acceptance or passing outcome.
WriteAcademic Research Question
• Diagnose candidate topics: Identify overly broad topics, unclear subjects, uncontrolled boundaries, and false novelty before determining whether the topic is ready to be finalized. • Narrow the research scope: Remove nonessential subjects, variables, and objectives to reduce “trying to study everything” to one central question. • Derive the core question: Identify a single research direction based on subject clarity, question sharpness, scope control, and fit with available materials. • Generate a standardized title: Produce one Chinese title aligned with the research question, with an English title and a specific contribution statement when needed. After opening, say: “I have 3 candidate topics and want to submit to a CSSCI journal. Help me finalize the topic.” It will first check the research subject, core question, scope, and practical constraints, then provide a well-supported final research question. If information is insufficient, it will ask follow-up questions instead of forcing a polished title. Suitable for: Researchers with candidate topics who are struggling to choose one / scholars who need to focus quickly before submission / anyone who does not want to be rejected by a reviewer’s one-line criticism that the research question is unclear. ✅ This version has undergone two months of refinement, testing, and iteration.
Find your next favorite skill
Explore more curated AI skills for research, creation, and everyday work.