Menu
Structured debate between two perspectives on a research design decision.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
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