Loading...
Loading...
Found 20 Skills
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.
Evaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.
Critical thinking and logical reasoning analysis skills for when you are explicitly asked to critically analyse written content such as articles, blogs, transcripts and reports (not code).
Analyze arguments, detect biases, evaluate claims, and improve reasoning. Use when asked to fact-check, identify logical fallacies, evaluate arguments, analyze predictions, find root causes, or think adversarially about plans. Triggers include "evaluate this argument", "logical fallacies", "fact check", "analyze the claims", "identify biases", "devil's advocate", "red team this", "root cause".
Thinking guidance mechanism that requires Agent to raise guiding questions before giving answers, helping users think actively and avoid the degradation of cognitive abilities. It is applicable to interaction scenarios such as user questioning, solution consultation, learning communication, etc.
Critical-thinking brainstorming partner that acts as a requirements analyst. Use when users present ideas, feature requests, or problems they want to solve. Triggers include "I want to build", "help me validate", "users need", "I'm thinking of creating", or any request involving problem/solution validation. This skill aggressively challenges assumptions, questions perceived problems, demands evidence, and ensures solutions address genuine needs before exploring implementation.
Surfaces and assesses hidden assumptions behind decisions, designs, or recurring patterns — use when reviewing a design before committing, reflecting on recurring problems, or questioning why the same kinds of issues keep appearing
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
A deterministic thinking partner that challenges assumptions and applies mental models to sharpen decisions, solve problems, and think more clearly. Use this skill whenever a user says "help me think through X", "challenge my thinking", "what am I missing", "apply mental models to this", "play devil's advocate", "stress test this idea", "poke holes in my plan", "help me decide between X and Y", "what are the second-order effects", "I'm stuck on a decision", names any specific model (SWOT, first principles, inversion, pre-mortem, etc.), or asks for structured reasoning on any ambiguous, high-stakes, or complex problem. Also trigger when the user seems uncertain, is rationalizing, or is asking "am I thinking about this right?" Even casual phrases like "what do you think about..." on non-trivial topics should trigger this skill.
Socratic questioning to examine beliefs, uncover assumptions, and develop deeper understanding. Use to challenge thinking, evaluate proposals, or teach without lecturing.
Analyzes fundamental questions and concepts through philosophical lens using logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and critical analysis frameworks. Provides insights on meaning, truth, knowledge, existence, reasoning, and conceptual clarity. Use when: Conceptual ambiguity, logical arguments, foundational assumptions, meaning questions. Evaluates: Validity, soundness, coherence, assumptions, implications, conceptual clarity.
Socratic coach for breaking down problems to fundamental truths. Use when users want to think through a problem deeply, challenge assumptions, or find innovative solutions. Triggers on requests like "help me think through this", "let's break this down", "what are my blind spots", "I'm stuck on a problem", "challenge my assumptions", or explicit requests for first-principles thinking.