SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillslight-competition

light-competition

Data & analytics

View repository

Updated 10-16 06:24

About this skill

Competition and Project Application Materials

First identify the competition/project type

Different competitions have different review priorities; first confirm and align withthe current edition's official rules(db08; rules change year by year, first download the latest review rules archive):

  • China Undergraduate Mathematical Contest in Modeling (CUMCM): Abstract (a separate page, determines initial screening) > Results > Model and solution; the paper must include model assumptions, establishment and solution, result verification, sensitivity analysis, strengths and weaknesses, and appendix code. Two-level review (regional → national).AI usage regulations (trial in 2025, effective from 2025-09-01; last_checked 2026-06): AI tools are allowed but not required (including LLM/generative/code assistance/intelligent mathematical software); core modeling and analysis must be completed independently by the participating team;if not used, must declare after the references "This participating team did not use any AI tools"; if used, must ① mark AI-generated content in the main text and list tool information in the references (name/version/organization/date) ② submit a PDF "Details of AI Tool Usage" (tools, stages of use, key prompts and responses, adoption and manual modification); failure to meet the labeling/explanation requirements will result in disqualification from awards (official source dxs.moe.gov.cn, verified 2026-06).
  • Mathematical Contest in Modeling / Interdisciplinary Contest in Modeling (MCM/ICM): The English Summary Sheet must be the first page, and judges give it extremely high weight (often it is what creates the gap; avoid restating the problem/copying the introduction, write it last);a hard upper limit of 25 pages for the entire paper(including abstract + main text + references + table of contents + appendix + code; the only exception is the required "Report on Use of AI," which does not count toward the page limit); 99-hour three-person team; awards Successful Participant < Honorable Mention < Meritorious < Finalist < Outstanding, with no passing line and rating based on completeness. MCM A continuous/B discrete/C data, ICM D operations research/E sustainability/F policy.
  • Statistical Modeling Competition: Real data sources, variable explanations, rigorous statistical inference, and practical significance > algorithmic showmanship; commonly uses multi-model comparison.
  • China International College Students' Innovation Competition (formerly Internet+): The higher education main track is divided into undergraduate/graduate groups × creative group/entrepreneurship group; evaluates innovation, team, commercial/social value, job creation, and feasibility. Submission = business plan + roadshow PPT + defense.
  • Challenge Cup: Divided into two parallel main competitions. The "Big Challenge" (extracurricular academic science and technology works) has three categories—natural science academic papers/philosophy and social sciences social investigation reports and papers/science and technology invention and production (A technical content · B practical innovation), emphasizing academic innovation and research depth; the "Small Challenge" (entrepreneurship plan competition) emphasizes commercial feasibility. First confirm which cup it is.
  • College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program/research training: Three categories (innovation training/entrepreneurship training/entrepreneurship practice); emphasizes the student as the main body and educational value (process-oriented growth); follows application and project approval → mid-term inspection → final acceptance.

Material modules (as needed)

Application form, project plan, business plan, pitch deck PPT (submit m16), defense script, project abstract, technical roadmap, innovation points, feasibility analysis, market analysis (size/competitors/pain points/barriers), research foundation, expected outcomes, budget (reasonably categorized), team division of labor.

General application form skeleton(isomorphic across College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program/Challenge Cup/research training/funds, and mutually reusable): project rationale and significance → domestic and international status quo → research content and objectives → technical roadmap/plan → feasibility analysis → innovation points → schedule (milestones) → expected outcomes → budget → team division of labor and foundation. Aligned with the NSF/NIH paradigm, this becomes Specific Aims→Significance→Innovation→Approach→Preliminary Data→Timeline→Budget→Broader Impacts. Key hard points borrowed from the Research Grants skill:

  • One-page structure of Specific Aims: open with the knowledge gap → long-term + near-term objectives → central hypothesis → 2–4 aims (each containing rationale/working hypothesis/method summary/expected output, independent yet complementary, and achievable within the time and budget) → closing payoff paragraph.
  • Write Innovation along five dimensions: concept/method/integration/translation/scale, and explain how to overcome the limitations of existing solutions.
  • Pair each aim in Approach with: design · sample size/data volume · analysis plan · quality control · contingency plan。
  • Persuasion line throughout: Hook→Problem→Solution→Evidence→Impact→Team, ensuring internal consistency among budget↔activities↔timeline↔personnel.

Before the business plan, first fill in the Lean Canvas (nine boxes) to self-check the logical loop: Problem (top 3 pain points)·Customer Segments·Unique Value Proposition·Solution·Channels·Revenue Streams·Cost Structure·Key Metrics·Unfair Advantage (hard-to-copy barrier). Note that "first-mover/team/resources" are often mistaken for barriers; UVP and Unfair Advantage are the most critical and hardest to fill in.

Core pages first(borrowing NIH Specific Aims, adapted for CN): reviewers have limited time,the first page/opening 300–500 wordsdetermine whether they will read through with interest. Write in the following order:

  • Hook (specific numerical hook) → Gap (why existing solutions are insufficient) → long-term goal/project goal → central hypothesis (for entrepreneurship-oriented = UVP in one sentence).
  • Rationale: move one piece of preliminary evidence forward to reduce perceived risk.
  • 2–4 sub-goals: each contains rationale/hypothesis/method/output, mutually independent and achievable within the cycle.
  • Payoff: closing with value.

The "project rationale + research content and objectives + innovation points" of the College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program/Challenge Cup, the 30-second opening of an Internet+ pitch, and the abstract of a mathematical modeling paper are all de facto core pages. For the complete eight-paragraph skeleton + paragraph-by-paragraph Chinese examples + self-check list, see assets/aims_zh_guide.md。

Writing key points

  • Innovation points: differentiate from existing solutions, quantifiable and demonstrable (reuse the judgments from m03/m04).
  • Feasibility: technical (has a foundation), resources (computing power/data/funding), time (milestones), team (division of labor matches).
  • Schedule/technical roadmap(borrowing the writing-plans approach): break the stages into verifiable small steps, each with deliverables, avoiding vague "phase-one investigation". Milestone JSON→Gantt chart (phase bars + deliverables + go/no-go diamond nodes)/technical roadmap (phase blocks + arrow flow) use scripts/roadmap_gen.py(run with no parameters for synthetic self-test,--emit-sample Export sample JSON; matplotlib automatically applies Chinese fonts; figures are reproducible artifacts, and materials are deleted once used).
  • Judges' perspective: highlight the bright spots, social/economic/academic value, a closed logical loop, and data support.
  • Market analysis(for entrepreneurship tracks, use the Market Research Reports skill and the 7-step method):
    • Three-tier estimation：TAM→SAM→SOM，put every layer's assumptions into an "assumption register" so judges can directly challenge the inputs, pair it with sensitivity analysis; if no ready-made report exists, use first principles (population base × conversion filtering × realistic ARPU), then use competitors' revenue/public financial reportscross-validation, to eliminate top-down inflation.
    • Four lenses on competitors: rate each of Porter's Five Forces as H/M/L with rationale, top market share, a 2×2 positioning matrix, and strategic groups; use a unified template for 5–7 companies, and distill table stakes/common gaps/underserved segments.
    • Data discipline: sources must be cited and no more than 2 years old; customer personas should be based on the real language of reviews and forums rather than speculation; use real, verifiable data, and do not fabricate market size.
    • Market data charts(TAM/SAM/SOM layered concentric circles, competitor 2×2 positioning matrix, Porter's Five Forces grading, risk probability × impact heatmap) use scripts/market_charts.py(run synthetic self-tests without arguments,--emit-sample export sample JSON; its three TAM/SAM/SOM values share the same set of numbers as the db08 budget/financial forecast, with a07 checking consistency; matplotlib automatically applies Chinese fonts and colorblind-safe semantic colors; figures are reproducible artifacts, and materials are deleted once used).

Roadshow PPT and defense

  • For a highly aesthetic roadshow deck, you can use the m16 imggen-enhanced image-generation pipeline(when an image-generation key is configured): outline card → full-page visual draft → element decomposition → reassembly, producing a high-quality editable pptx, suitable for the on-site feel of entrepreneurship/Challenge Cup roadshows (see m16 light-slides/references/imggen_pipeline.md); if there is no key or the content is data-intensive, use m16's default programmatic route.
  • Use the assertion-evidence method (Michael Alley) for academic/defense slides: write a complete concluding sentence as each page's title, use charts/diagrams as evidence in the body, and avoid piling up bullets; one page, one message. Set upper and lower bounds for content density (borrowing from beamer-skill: ≤7 bullets/2 formulas/5 symbols per page, and every page must be worth existing); Why before What. For formula-dense scenarios, Beamer can be used (block/alertblock for key points), but use overlays cautiously in handouts/printouts—beamer-skill simply abandons \pause/\onslide, replacing it with multiple pages + colorblind-safe semantic colors (contrast ≥4.5:1) for progressive emphasis.
  • After the PPT draft is produced, run a visual QA closed loop(borrowing from the PPTX skill / beamer-skill): convert to PDF → convert page by page to images (pdftoppm -jpeg -r 150) → use "fresh eyes" to check overlap/contrast/overflow/leftover placeholders (grep for xxxx/lorem/unreplaced wording) → fix → re-verify only the affected pages → until no new issues remain. Beamer swallows overflow warnings inside blocks, so visual audit is essential to catch them.Separate review from revision: first read out only a structured report of "location/current state/suggestion/severity", then make changes in a separate step; you can add a devil's-advocate adversarial round dedicated to finding design flaws.

Review simulation

After the draft is produced, self-review from the judges' perspective (analogous to m14): is the innovation sufficient, is it feasible, does the business logic hold, is the budget reasonable, and what might be asked in the defense.First use references/anti_patterns.md Five categories of anti-patterns (concept/writing/technical/format/strategy, each with symptom → why points are deducted → how to fix + a one-page quick-reference table) to clear mines item by item, then you can also use real scoring dimensions as a checklist: for grant categories, go through the five NIH criteria (Significance/Investigator/Innovation/Approach/Environment) or the two NSF criteria (Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts) item by item; for slides, use the beamer-skill deduction system (start from 100 and deduct item by item) + devil's-advocate adversarial rounds. For CUMCM, focus on reviewing the abstract and result verification/sensitivity analysis; for MCM/ICM, review whether it exceeds 25 pages (appendix code also counts), whether the Summary Sheet has degenerated into a restatement of the problem, and whether the AI statement is written; for entrepreneurship categories, review whether the UVP and barriers, and the market sizing (assumption register + cross-validation) can withstand questioning. Multiple selling points can be ranked using content-strategy weighted scoring (customer impact 40% + fit 30% + potential 20% + resources 10%) to avoid flat, undifferentiated presentation.

Linkage with other outputs

Technical content ← m05/a03/a04; paper outputs ← m07; software copyrights and patents ← m15; PPT ← m16; charts ← m11; consistency is ensured by a07 (unified statements across materials for the same project).

Outputs

Corresponding material documents + defense QA rehearsal + material checklist verification + budget table.Application core page guide(NIH Specific Aims → CN College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program/Challenge Cup core page, eight-paragraph skeleton + Chinese examples + self-check) see assets/aims_zh_guide.md；Cross-competition anti-pattern manual(five categories, symptom → why points are deducted → how to fix) see references/anti_patterns.md；Progress chart generator(milestone JSON → Gantt chart/technical roadmap) see scripts/roadmap_gen.py。Market data chart generator(TAM/SAM/SOM layered concentric circles, competitor 2×2 positioning matrix, Porter's Five Forces grading, risk probability × impact heatmap) see scripts/market_charts.py(JSON shares the same TAM/SAM/SOM set with the budget/financial forecast).Budget table template(research expenditure budget/entrepreneurship financial forecast + assumption register + self-review checklist) see db08/budget_template.md;High-scoring structural skeletons for various competitions(Internet+/Challenge Cup Grand Challenge/College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program/mathematical modeling + review dimensions + common elimination points) see db08/case_skeletons.md; material type cards see db08/material_cards.md. Tool-by-tool research notes (real endpoints/methods/links) see references.md.

Connection

The whole process goes into db09; business/data authenticity risks are reported to a10 (do not exaggerate, do not fabricate). Before delivery, pass the a08 (light-self-review) self-check gate.