What problem does it solve? Researchers who have settled on a topic often struggle to turn a research question into a defensible study design: hypotheses lack explanatory logic, methods are chosen by habit rather than justified, and citations pile up without building an argument. This Skill provides a structured diagnostic chain—from theory derivation to method justification—so every design choice can be defended before reviewers ask. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Theory Derivation Diagnosis (Step A): Checks explanatory logic, hypothesis specificity, theoretical coherence across variables, and concept operationalization (denominator, unit, boundary), based on AMJ hypothesis-building standards. - Method Justification Diagnosis (Step C): Audits the throughline from research question to results, applies a three-layer defense (operational, choice, epistemological), and tests method-theory consistency. - Literature Dialogue Throughout: Distinguishes citations that support your own argument from decorative citation stacking, with separate checks for the derivation and justification phases. - Use Case: A PhD student whose reviewer said "the method justification is insufficient" can run the C1 throughline check and C2 three-layer defense to locate exactly which link—epistemology, method choice, or analysis—broke, and repair it with source-attributed guidance. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to diagnose your research design by pasting your research question, hypotheses, and planned methods, and request a full execution-layer review from theory derivation through method justification.
