Menu
Structured debate between two perspectives on a research design decision.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
End-of-session shutdown sequence. Saves session log, updates MEMORY.md, updates CLAUDE.md, and stages a git commit.
First-time project setup. Checks prerequisites (Zotero MCP), asks for paper count, generates folder structure, and configures all templates.
Peripheral vision audit — find what the author has become blind to in their results. Run in a FRESH TERMINAL.
Safely deprecate a file following the deprecation protocol.
Find gaps in the literature based on existing Obsidian notes. Searches for high-quality articles the author may have missed.
Scaffold a new paper directory with the full structure, CLAUDE.md, and empty templates.
| name | devils-advocate |
| description | Structured debate between two perspectives on a research design decision. |
| argument-hint | [decision] [option-A] vs [option-B] |
When uncertain about a design choice: DiD vs synthetic control, instrument A vs instrument B, cluster at district vs province, include control X or not.
State the decision clearly: what is being decided, what are the options
Argue FOR Option A — the strongest possible case:
Argue FOR Option B — the strongest possible case:
Present the trade-off matrix:
| Dimension | Option A | Option B |
|---|---|---|
| Assumptions required | ||
| Robustness to violations | ||
| Data requirements | ||
| Reviewer acceptability | ||
| Precision |
Recommendation (with caveats): which option is stronger and why
Document the decision and reasoning in pre-analysis-plan/strategy-memo.md