crypto-idea-evaluator

Crypto Idea Evaluator

Convert an informal idea into falsifiable research claims and a decision-ready brief. Do not assume significance, novelty, correctness, security, or performance.

Scope

In scope: problem/claim formalization, baseline and threat-model selection, assumption/parameter inventory, proof and experiment obligations, feasibility/significance risks, ethics, and kill criteria.

Out of scope: declaring novelty without search, proving theorems, inventing results, writing a finished paper, or submitting/publishing anything.

Required Inputs

• the proposed construction, technique, observation, or target improvement;
• intended primitive/protocol, security notion/model, adversary, and use case;
• expected difference from known baselines;
• available theory, implementation, data, compute, and time constraints.

Ask for missing information only when it changes the core research question. Otherwise state assumptions.

Success Criteria

• The idea becomes explicit research questions and falsifiable claims.
• Functionality, security, efficiency, usability, and novelty claims are separated.
• Each claim has required proof, literature, parameter, or experimental evidence.
• Baselines, closest-work search needs, assumptions, threat model, parameters, and ethical risks are visible.
• Feasibility risks and kill/pivot criteria are concrete.
• The recommendation is proceed, proceed with prerequisites, pivot, or stop—never “promising” without evidence.

Failure Modes

• Vague idea: return alternative formalizations and request the decisive missing delta.
• Unstated security model: block security conclusions and list candidate models.
• Novelty premise: mark unverified and require a bounded prior-art search.
• Unavailable resources: propose a smaller falsifiable study or mark infeasible.
• Ethical/responsible-disclosure risk: require human review before data collection, attack execution, or disclosure.
• Contradictory goals: expose the tradeoff and request a priority decision.

Never fabricate prior art, proof obligations already discharged, benchmark results, parameters, or reviewer interest.

Workflow

1. Apply protocol.md to formalize the object, claim map, baselines, model, assumptions, and evidence obligations.
2. Create adversarial alternative explanations and fastest falsification tests.
3. Define minimum viable theorem/prototype/experiment and kill criteria.
4. Produce a staged research brief with dependencies and human decisions.
5. Use evaluation-scenarios.md for future independent evaluation; do not claim it ran unless outputs were inspected.

Output Contract

Return: idea statement; research questions; claim-evidence matrix; threat/setup model; baselines and novelty-search brief; proof/parameter/experiment plan; significance and ethics analysis; risks; kill/pivot criteria; next three actions; bounded recommendation.