Research Survey Visualizer

Survey research publications and create intuitive inline interactive visualizations using the Visualizer tool (show_widget). Output is NOT a file or artifact — it's a series of SVG diagrams and HTML interactive widgets woven into the conversation with text explanations.

Workflow Overview

Phase 1: Research Discovery

1. Identify target: Researcher name, institution, or specific paper(s)
2. Web search: Fetch paper content from arxiv HTML or search for key publications
3. Gather papers: Collect 3-7 key publications with venues, dates, and links

Phase 2: Deep Analysis — Insight-First Extraction

For each paper, extract in this exact order (Why→What→How):

1. CONTEXT — 왜 이게 문제인가?

| What to find | How to present | |---|---| | Existing method's concrete failure case | Specific scenario where it breaks | | Why current approaches fail (root cause) | Cause→effect chain, not just "it's limited" | | Intuitive analogy for non-experts | "Like trying to X without Y" |

2. INSIGHT — 뭘 깨달았나?

| What to find | How to present | |---|---| | The observation others missed | "Everyone assumed X, but actually Y" | | Why this insight naturally leads to a solution | "If the problem is X, then the fix is obviously Y" |

3. METHOD — 어떻게 해결했나?

| What to find | How to present | |---|---| | 3-5 step pipeline from insight to implementation | Each step as a transformation | | What each step does to the data/model | Input → transformation → output | | How this connects back to the insight | "Because we realized X, we do Y at this step" |

4. EVIDENCE — 왜 믿을 수 있나?

| What to find | How to present | |---|---| | 3-4 baseline methods and their specific weaknesses | "X failed because..." | | Quantitative comparison | "X collapsed at N=1000, ours held steady" | | The key differentiator vs each baseline | Side-by-side contrast |

Critical: Never describe a method without first explaining WHY it's needed. Never show results without comparison to alternatives.

CRITICAL: Response Separation Strategy (Stability)

Widget rendering fails when heavy tool calls (web_fetch, read_me) and multiple widgets coexist in the same response. The client-side iframe renderer cannot handle the combined streaming load, resulting in "No result received" errors and invisible widgets.

Mandatory response split

Response 1 (Fetch & Analyze):
  - web_fetch (PDF/HTML)
  - read_me (load design guide)
  - Text: analysis summary, context, insight explanation
  - End response here. Do NOT generate widgets yet.

Response 2+ (Visualize):
  - Max 2 widgets per response
  - Text between every widget
  - If 3-5 widgets needed, split across 2-3 responses

Why this matters

Tested and confirmed: identical widget code succeeds when called in a clean response, but fails when preceded by web_fetch + read_me in the same response. The issue is client-side rendering timing, not widget complexity — complex widgets (tabs, dynamic rendering, sendPrompt) work fine in isolation.

Widget code compactness

Use short CSS class names and JS variable names to minimize widget_code size. This improves streaming reliability.

BAD:  .sim-row, .result-box, .result-num, getElementById('stress')
GOOD: .sr, .rb, .rn, getElementById('s1')

Phase 3: Visualization — Inline Widget Sequence

Before creating any widget: Ensure read_me was called in a PRIOR response (not the current one). If this is the first response, call read_me alone with the analysis text, then generate widgets in the NEXT response.

Output is a sequence of text + widgets in THIS order:

1. [Text]              Context — 왜 이 논문/연구가 필요한가
2. [Interactive HTML]  WHY 체감 위젯 — 문제를 직접 경험 (필수)
3. [Text]              Insight 설명 — 핵심 깨달음 + 인과 체인
4. [SVG Diagram]       WHAT 다이어그램 — 논문의 핵심 구조/메커니즘
5. [Text]              Method 설명 — insight → solution 연결
6. [Interactive HTML]  HOW 시뮬레이션 — 제안 방법을 직접 조작 (필수)
7. [Text]              Evidence + 결론 — 정량 비교, 시사점

If the full sequence requires 3+ widgets, split across responses:

• Response A: widgets 1-2 (WHY + WHAT) with bridging text
• Response B: widgets 3+ (HOW + EVIDENCE) with concluding text
• Use a natural transition: "다음 위젯에서 해결 방법을 직접 조작해보세요." then continue

Widget Requirements

• 최소 2개 Interactive HTML 위젯 필수: 하나는 "문제 체감용", 하나는 "해결 체감용"
• 위젯 사이에 반드시 텍스트 배치: 위젯끼리 연속 배치 금지
• 한 응답당 최대 2개 위젯: 3개 이상 필요하면 응답을 나눈다
• sendPrompt(): 모든 클릭 가능한 노드에 후속 질문 연결

Widget Type Decision Guide

| 논문 요소 | 위젯 타입 | 핵심 인터랙션 | |-----------|----------|-------------| | 문제 체감 (WHY) | HTML interactive (필수) | 슬라이더/토글로 기존 방법의 한계를 직접 경험 | | 핵심 구조 (WHAT) | SVG diagram | 클릭 → sendPrompt()로 deep-dive | | 해결 체감 (HOW) | HTML interactive (필수) | 파라미터 조작으로 제안 방법의 효과 확인 | | 정량 비교 (EVIDENCE) | Chart.js 또는 SVG | 호버/필터로 baseline별 비교 |

For detailed design patterns and code examples, see references/visualization-design.md.

Phase 4: Multi-Paper Surveys

When surveying multiple papers:

1. Lead with unifying theme: What connects these papers?
2. Per paper: Follow the WHY→WHAT→HOW sequence above
3. Cross-paper synthesis: What each paper realized differently
4. Comparison widget: Interactive HTML comparing approaches side-by-side
5. Use sendPrompt() buttons to let users navigate between papers

Output Rules

1. Language: Match user's language (Korean/English)
2. Narrative: Always Why→What→How. Never method-first.
3. Interactivity: Minimum 2 interactive HTML widgets per paper
4. Text placement: Explanatory text goes in response, NOT inside widgets
5. Concreteness: Use analogies and concrete examples over jargon
6. Comparison: Every method explained relative to baselines
7. No inline event handlers (CSP): NEVER use onclick="", oninput="", onchange="" or any on*="" HTML attributes. They are blocked by the iframe Content Security Policy. ALWAYS use document.getElementById('id').addEventListener('event', fn) inside a <script> block instead. This applies to both HTML widgets and SVG sendPrompt() calls — use addEventListener('click', () => sendPrompt('...')) on SVG nodes.

Avoid

• Jargon without intuitive explanation
• Findings without comparison to alternatives
• Method description without motivation ("왜 이렇게 했는지" 없이 "이렇게 했다"만)
• Static-only diagrams claiming to be "interactive"
• Putting explanation text inside widget HTML (text belongs in response)
• Creating .jsx files or React artifacts (use Visualizer show_widget only)
• Information dump without narrative arc
• Inline event handlers (onclick="", oninput="", etc.) — CSP blocks them; use addEventListener

Quick Reference

Response 1: Paper URL → Web Fetch → read_me → Insight-First Extraction (text only, NO widgets)
Response 2: WHY widget + WHAT diagram (max 2 widgets) + bridging text
Response 3: HOW widget + EVIDENCE (if needed) + conclusion text

Golden rule: Never mix web_fetch/read_me with widget generation in the same response.

For detailed guidance:

• Survey methodology: references/survey-workflow.md
• Visual design patterns: references/visualization-design.md