Agent Skills: Scientific Thinking

Use when facing unknowns, debugging without a clear cause, or making architecture decisions — enforces hypothesis-driven scientific reasoning through observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, experiment design, and evidence-based conclusion. Use when previous attempts have failed or the problem space involves uncertainty.

UncategorizedID: Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills/scientific-thinking

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills/tree/HEAD/plugins/scientific-method/skills/scientific-thinking

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for scientific-thinking.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

plugins/scientific-method/skills/scientific-thinking/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
scientific-thinking
Description
Use when facing unknowns, debugging without a clear cause, or making architecture decisions — enforces hypothesis-driven scientific reasoning through observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, experiment design, and evidence-based conclusion. Use when previous attempts have failed or the problem space involves uncertainty.

Scientific Thinking

Enforces the scientific method as an investigation discipline. Governs hypothesis formulation, predictions, experiment design, and evidence-based conclusions.

Shared Resources

Load these references at the start of any investigation. A references index is available for a quick map of all shared files.

Companion Skill

evidence-first-debugging handles observation recording, evidence IDs, and causality validation. Both skills use the same Unified Investigation Template output structure. Load evidence-first-debugging when the task requires structured evidence tracking alongside hypothesis work.

Activation Triggers

Activate this skill when the prompt contains:

  • "unknown cause", "strange behavior", "intermittent"
  • "architecture decision", "previous attempts failed"
  • "root cause", "investigation"

Scope Boundary

Apply this skill to problems with genuine uncertainty — unknowns, failed attempts, complex architecture trade-offs.

Tasks outside scope: typo fixes, simple additions, tasks with explicit step-by-step instructions already provided. For those, execute directly.

Investigation Stages

Enforce stages in this order. Each stage gates the next.

flowchart TD
    S0[Stage 0-3: Observation<br>Record ONLY factual observations<br>No interpretation] --> S4
    S4[Stage 4: Hypothesis Formulation<br>State H0 null and H1 alternative<br>Both must be falsifiable] --> S5
    S5[Stage 5: Prediction<br>Write: If H1 is true, we should observe...] --> S6
    S6[Stage 6-7: Experiment Design<br>Define Path A and Path B<br>Identify confounds] --> S8
    S8[Stage 8-9: Execute<br>Run experiments<br>Record results verbatim] --> S10
    S10[Stage 10-11: Conclusion<br>Classify causality<br>State decision<br>Cite evidence IDs] --> Done
    Done{status?}
    Done -->|resolved-verified| Retro[Notify user: retrospective-analyst<br>agent can produce mermaid timeline<br>and retrospective from iteration log]
    Done -->|unresolved or mitigated| S0

Stage Rules

Observation (sections 0-3):

  • Record only what is directly observable — no causal language, no interpretations
  • Each observation requires an evidence ID (delegated to evidence-first-debugging)

Hypothesis Formulation (section 4):

  • H0 (null): the default assumption — no effect, no cause
  • H1 (alternative): the proposed cause or mechanism
  • Both must be falsifiable — if a hypothesis cannot be tested, rewrite it

Prediction (section 5):

  • Write one sentence per hypothesis: "If H1 is true, we should observe X when we do Y"
  • Predictions must reference observable, measurable outcomes

Experiment Design (sections 6-7):

  • Path A: test that would confirm H1
  • Path B: test that would refute H1 (controls for confounds)
  • List confounds explicitly — variables that could produce the same result without H1 being true

Execute (sections 8-9):

  • Run experiments exactly as designed — record results verbatim, not summarized
  • If execution diverges from design, restart from Experiment Design with updated constraints

Conclusion (sections 10-11):

  • Classify each action-result link: causal-supported, correlated-only, unrelated, or unknown
  • State the decision derived from evidence
  • Every claim must cite an evidence ID — no unsupported assertions