NSFC Research Content and Plan Splitting

Problem

In NSFC proposals, Research Content and Research Plan are often merged into one methods paragraph. A single item may describe the scientific mechanism while also naming surveys, BERTopic, NVivo, databases, algorithms, or parameters. That mixing can obscure the actual research question and make the technical route read like a literature review rather than an execution plan.

How the Skill Works

The skill treats the draft as a formatting and boundary problem, then separates the two sections:
- Research Content: keeps scientific variables, mechanism paths, subquestions, boundary conditions, and expected findings; excludes data collection techniques, analysis tools, algorithm names, data sources, and implementation details.
- Research Plan: keeps operational steps, technical route, parameter settings, quality control, and analysis flow; excludes generalized scientific claims, variable-relation statements, theoretical framework statements, and large literature-review text.
It follows a workflow of receive input, extract subquestions, write content, and write plan. For qualitative work, it requires explicit rules for theoretical sampling, coding stages, and theoretical saturation. For quantitative work, it requires sample size, measurement tools, and analysis workflow.

Scope and Caveats

Use it when you already have a scientific hypothesis and need to rewrite or audit the NSFC research-content and research-plan sections, especially when methods and scientific statements are interleaved. It does not produce a complete proposal, full literature review, ethics package, or domain-specific scientific validation; weak input on the research question, population, or method boundary will limit output quality.