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.
From scientific-methodnpx claudepluginhub jamie-bitflight/claude_skills --plugin scientific-methodThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
references/shared-references.mdScientific 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.
- Unified Investigation Template — output structure for all investigation work
- Investigation Workflow — mermaid diagrams of the full scientific method flow
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, orunknown - State the decision derived from evidence
- Every claim must cite an evidence ID — no unsupported assertions