My intention is not to attempt directly to answer your question, but to open it up further and suggest how an answer could be. I suppose that you have in mind something like Mark Sainsbury's Paradoxes (the contents of which are below) or David Hilbert's well-known Mathematical Problems.
Basically, the course of philosophy is, to use a visual metaphor, helical: From one vantage point, it turns back on itself over again to the same point, while, from another vantage point, it redefines problems, improves views and introduces novel arguments, thus progresses to a higher level.
Sure, there is a periodisation of philosophy during which several problems and responses gain prominence, but these periods are more akin to Foucault's conception of episteme than Kuhn's conception of paradigm and both the periods and their contents are hard to individualise without controversies.
To put briefly, philosophy hardly produces concrete results. Its theories are too general to offer meaningfully testable hypotheses that we are familiar with in science and too liberal in argumentation in contrast to mathematics.
In the meantime, some arguments and outlooks take on a prototypical or well-defined character and are handed down to later investigations (see, for instance, the New Evil Demon Problem). However, by the nature of philosophy, these are not so many, if what one seeks is something ready at hand.
No doubt, one can embark upon identifying and perspicuously defining such problems and associated arguments by oneself. Probably, a considerable part of them would not have the enjoyment of riddles or puzzles, but it is a good idea.