Reverse Onion Search
Systematic method, affordable for beginners.
Description
Recommended by
nene@YouMind
Why we love this skill
This skill offers the Reverse Onion Peeling method for literature search, from topic deconstruction to layered search, guiding you to build precise search strategies. Beginners can easily start.
Enter a topic phrase, and it will automatically break down the structure using the Reverse Onion Method → expand synonym groups → generate four-layer search formulas (CNKI + WoS/Google Scholar), along with an execution checklist and filtering strategies. Suitable for all disciplines; search formulas can be directly copied and used. 🎯 What pain points does it solve? ❌ Entering a full sentence directly in the search box → 0 results ❌ Searching only one keyword → 5000 results, overwhelming ❌ Can't break down the topic → no direction for search terms ✅ Input 'Middle-class educational anxiety and shadow education practices' → outputs 30+ ready-to-paste search formulas + synonym table + layered execution checklist 📐 Core Method: Reverse Onion Method From inside out, from narrow to wide, three layers of progressive expansion – core layer precisely locks in 4 must-read papers, expansion layer finds 48 directly related studies, panoramic layer builds domain volume awareness. 🔧 Output includes: • Three-element topic breakdown (modifier + research unit + research dimension) • 5-8 synonym concepts per element, with Chinese-English pairs, superordinate/subordinate concepts • Layer 1: 8 groups of three-element combined search formulas (title → topic, tight → loose) • Layer 2: 3 types of two-element pairings (annotated core/background usage) • Layer 3: Single-element panoramic search formula • Layer 4: Superordinate concept expansion strategy • 📋 Six-step execution checklist + filtering criteria per layer (highly cited + most recent) 👥 Who is it for? Academic beginners, graduate students, early-career researchers – anyone who needs systematic literature search rather than keyword guessing.
Related Skills
View all
ResearchGuided Literature Search
Search literature differently: this Skill gives you a “map of the field” first. It offers five standout capabilities: ① Reviews first, core papers second (a strict rule)—find 3–5 review articles to map the field, then follow their references to locate core literature, so you are not overwhelmed by hundreds of papers from the start; ② Literature authenticity verification (to prevent AI hallucinations)—uses placeholder-pattern checks and real-time verification through CrossRef, DOI, CNKI, and Wanfang, checking each author, journal, DOI, and page number without fabricating a single reference; ③ Automated advanced CSSCI searches on CNKI—when you have VPN or institutional access, automatically extract CSSCI records and abstracts, up to 100 papers at a time, and save them directly to Excel; ④ Direct English OA downloads—download directly from arXiv, MDPI, Frontiers, and other sources at 100%; download approximately 50–70% of Springer and Elsevier OA papers directly; for paywalled papers, receive a DOI link and VPN download instructions; ⑤ Topic selection with the Three-Circle Focus Method—intersect policy trends, your prior experience, and your problem awareness to turn a vague idea into a genuinely worthwhile research topic. The seven-step core workflow is: research topic design → keyword refinement → find reviews first → find core literature → screen and verify → attempt downloads → produce a prioritized reading list. It also includes two enhanced modules: a structured 12-element breakdown in Excel and iterative reflection after reading. Clear boundaries: it does not promise to bypass CNKI’s anti-scraping protections to download Chinese full texts, log in to a VPN on your behalf, or write the main body of your paper. Designed for graduate students, university faculty, and academic researchers who need to conduct systematic literature searches.
ResearchThesis Topic & Intro v3.2
Read in 10 seconds: turn a vague observation into a defensible topic, then into an introduction that can pass review. Throughout, it uses only the real materials you provide — no fabricated references. Trigger words: thesis topic, topic selection, introduction, research gap, academic writing, thesis proposal, topic selection before literature review. Applies to: journal papers / dissertations / conference papers / course papers, across all disciplines — humanities and social sciences, STEM, agriculture, medicine, and life sciences. Up and running in 3 minutes: lock in your discipline and starting point → shape the topic layer by layer → strict evidence-chain gate → module-by-module introduction → ratchet finalization. [Division of labor with other skills] The health check comes first, writing comes after, and polishing comes last. This skill handles the middle stretch: topic shaping + introduction draft. It does not write the full paper (that's the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.x), and it does not polish language sentence by sentence (that's the Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v8.x). [Six gates] 1. Discipline placement: classify into one of four categories — 1A humanities/arts, 1B social sciences, 2A STEM, 2B agriculture/medicine/life sciences — and load the corresponding red-line norms; for category 2B, ethics review status is always checked. 2. Stage positioning: are you at a vague observation, have a unit but no angle, have an object but no theory, lack a method, lack a viewpoint, or only lack an introduction? Start from the corresponding gate instead of starting over from scratch. 3. Topic shaping: research unit → dimension compass → theoretical perspective → research method → research viewpoint, locked layer by layer; before locking each layer, first judge whether the previous layer holds. 4. Strict evidence-chain gate: before the introduction, your references are registered into an M1/M2… material library, each entry verified on four elements — author/year/title/locator; if fewer than 3 references are registered in the conversation, the system refuses to generate the research-gap statement — not a downgrade, a refusal. 5. Module-by-module generation: the introduction is produced in five inverted-pyramid modules, and each module must be annotated with citation numbers [Mn]; no source, no sentence. 6. Ratchet finalization: only versions that have passed receive credit; qualifying modules are locked and no longer changed; scores only go up, never down. [Deliverables] A '[Topic Keyword] · Topic & Introduction' document + a sentence-level traceable citation mapping table + a ⚠️ to-verify checklist + an AFP archive code. The archive code works across four systems — the proposal health-checker, the v4.x full-process system, and the three-track polishing system — so switching skills doesn't require re-stating your discipline, topic, journal, or material library. [Explicitly not done] It does not fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, page numbers, or DOIs; any bibliographic records retrieved online are marked ⚠️ to-verify and can only be written into the reference list after you verify them; it makes no promises of acceptance or passing review. Authorship and responsibility are yours — please verify every citation and data point.
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.
Reverse Onion Search
Systematic method, affordable for beginners.
Description
Recommended by
nene@YouMind
Why we love this skill
This skill offers the Reverse Onion Peeling method for literature search, from topic deconstruction to layered search, guiding you to build precise search strategies. Beginners can easily start.
Enter a topic phrase, and it will automatically break down the structure using the Reverse Onion Method → expand synonym groups → generate four-layer search formulas (CNKI + WoS/Google Scholar), along with an execution checklist and filtering strategies. Suitable for all disciplines; search formulas can be directly copied and used. 🎯 What pain points does it solve? ❌ Entering a full sentence directly in the search box → 0 results ❌ Searching only one keyword → 5000 results, overwhelming ❌ Can't break down the topic → no direction for search terms ✅ Input 'Middle-class educational anxiety and shadow education practices' → outputs 30+ ready-to-paste search formulas + synonym table + layered execution checklist 📐 Core Method: Reverse Onion Method From inside out, from narrow to wide, three layers of progressive expansion – core layer precisely locks in 4 must-read papers, expansion layer finds 48 directly related studies, panoramic layer builds domain volume awareness. 🔧 Output includes: • Three-element topic breakdown (modifier + research unit + research dimension) • 5-8 synonym concepts per element, with Chinese-English pairs, superordinate/subordinate concepts • Layer 1: 8 groups of three-element combined search formulas (title → topic, tight → loose) • Layer 2: 3 types of two-element pairings (annotated core/background usage) • Layer 3: Single-element panoramic search formula • Layer 4: Superordinate concept expansion strategy • 📋 Six-step execution checklist + filtering criteria per layer (highly cited + most recent) 👥 Who is it for? Academic beginners, graduate students, early-career researchers – anyone who needs systematic literature search rather than keyword guessing.
Related Skills
View allResearchGuided Literature Search
Search literature differently: this Skill gives you a “map of the field” first. It offers five standout capabilities: ① Reviews first, core papers second (a strict rule)—find 3–5 review articles to map the field, then follow their references to locate core literature, so you are not overwhelmed by hundreds of papers from the start; ② Literature authenticity verification (to prevent AI hallucinations)—uses placeholder-pattern checks and real-time verification through CrossRef, DOI, CNKI, and Wanfang, checking each author, journal, DOI, and page number without fabricating a single reference; ③ Automated advanced CSSCI searches on CNKI—when you have VPN or institutional access, automatically extract CSSCI records and abstracts, up to 100 papers at a time, and save them directly to Excel; ④ Direct English OA downloads—download directly from arXiv, MDPI, Frontiers, and other sources at 100%; download approximately 50–70% of Springer and Elsevier OA papers directly; for paywalled papers, receive a DOI link and VPN download instructions; ⑤ Topic selection with the Three-Circle Focus Method—intersect policy trends, your prior experience, and your problem awareness to turn a vague idea into a genuinely worthwhile research topic. The seven-step core workflow is: research topic design → keyword refinement → find reviews first → find core literature → screen and verify → attempt downloads → produce a prioritized reading list. It also includes two enhanced modules: a structured 12-element breakdown in Excel and iterative reflection after reading. Clear boundaries: it does not promise to bypass CNKI’s anti-scraping protections to download Chinese full texts, log in to a VPN on your behalf, or write the main body of your paper. Designed for graduate students, university faculty, and academic researchers who need to conduct systematic literature searches.
ResearchThesis Topic & Intro v3.2
Read in 10 seconds: turn a vague observation into a defensible topic, then into an introduction that can pass review. Throughout, it uses only the real materials you provide — no fabricated references. Trigger words: thesis topic, topic selection, introduction, research gap, academic writing, thesis proposal, topic selection before literature review. Applies to: journal papers / dissertations / conference papers / course papers, across all disciplines — humanities and social sciences, STEM, agriculture, medicine, and life sciences. Up and running in 3 minutes: lock in your discipline and starting point → shape the topic layer by layer → strict evidence-chain gate → module-by-module introduction → ratchet finalization. [Division of labor with other skills] The health check comes first, writing comes after, and polishing comes last. This skill handles the middle stretch: topic shaping + introduction draft. It does not write the full paper (that's the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.x), and it does not polish language sentence by sentence (that's the Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v8.x). [Six gates] 1. Discipline placement: classify into one of four categories — 1A humanities/arts, 1B social sciences, 2A STEM, 2B agriculture/medicine/life sciences — and load the corresponding red-line norms; for category 2B, ethics review status is always checked. 2. Stage positioning: are you at a vague observation, have a unit but no angle, have an object but no theory, lack a method, lack a viewpoint, or only lack an introduction? Start from the corresponding gate instead of starting over from scratch. 3. Topic shaping: research unit → dimension compass → theoretical perspective → research method → research viewpoint, locked layer by layer; before locking each layer, first judge whether the previous layer holds. 4. Strict evidence-chain gate: before the introduction, your references are registered into an M1/M2… material library, each entry verified on four elements — author/year/title/locator; if fewer than 3 references are registered in the conversation, the system refuses to generate the research-gap statement — not a downgrade, a refusal. 5. Module-by-module generation: the introduction is produced in five inverted-pyramid modules, and each module must be annotated with citation numbers [Mn]; no source, no sentence. 6. Ratchet finalization: only versions that have passed receive credit; qualifying modules are locked and no longer changed; scores only go up, never down. [Deliverables] A '[Topic Keyword] · Topic & Introduction' document + a sentence-level traceable citation mapping table + a ⚠️ to-verify checklist + an AFP archive code. The archive code works across four systems — the proposal health-checker, the v4.x full-process system, and the three-track polishing system — so switching skills doesn't require re-stating your discipline, topic, journal, or material library. [Explicitly not done] It does not fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, page numbers, or DOIs; any bibliographic records retrieved online are marked ⚠️ to-verify and can only be written into the reference list after you verify them; it makes no promises of acceptance or passing review. Authorship and responsibility are yours — please verify every citation and data point.
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.
Find your next favorite skill
Explore more curated AI skills for research, creation, and everyday work.