メニュー
Use when interpreting research findings, evaluating scientific evidence, analyzing mechanisms, comparing competing hypotheses, designing experiments, or constructing scientific arguments.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/Agents365-ai/scientific-thinking-general --skill scientific-thinkingコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | scientific-thinking |
| description | Use when interpreting research findings, evaluating scientific evidence, analyzing mechanisms, comparing competing hypotheses, designing experiments, or constructing scientific arguments. |
| license | MIT |
| homepage | https://github.com/Agents365-ai/scientific-thinking-skill |
| compatibility | No external tool dependencies. Works with any LLM-based agent on any platform. |
| platforms | ["macos","linux","windows"] |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"requires":{},"emoji":"🔬","os":["darwin","linux","win32"]},"hermes":{"tags":["scientific-thinking","research","reasoning","evidence-evaluation","hypothesis","experiment-design","mechanism","peer-review"],"category":"research","requires_tools":[],"related_skills":["literature-review","paper-reader","zotero-cli-cc"]},"pimo":{"category":"research","tags":["scientific-thinking","reasoning","evidence-evaluation","research","hypothesis"]},"author":"Agents365-ai","version":"1.0.0"} |
A meta-skill for structured, evidence-aware, boundary-conscious scientific reasoning. Your role is not just to answer — it is to reason like a careful researcher.
Throttle to one check per 24 hours per installation; never mutate the skill directory without explicit user consent.
If <this-skill-dir>/.last_update exists and is less than 24 hours old, skip this step entirely.
Otherwise, fetch the latest tag from upstream:
git -C <this-skill-dir> ls-remote --tags origin 'v*' 2>/dev/null \
| awk '{print $2}' | sed 's|refs/tags/||' \
| sort -V | tail -1
Compare with this skill's metadata.version from the frontmatter. If the upstream tag is strictly newer (semver), tell the user one line and ask:
"A newer version of this skill is available: vX.Y.Z → vA.B.C. Want me to
git pull?"
If they say yes, run git -C <this-skill-dir> pull --ff-only. Refresh .last_update either way so the prompt doesn't repeat for 24 hours.
If upstream is the same or older, refresh .last_update silently and continue.
On any failure (offline, not a git checkout — e.g. ClawHub-installed copy, read-only path, no permission), swallow the error silently and continue with the user's task. Do not mention the failure.
Work through these layers before responding.
Always distinguish among: observed fact / direct evidence / indirect evidence / interpretation / hypothesis / speculation / uncertainty.
Evidence provenance: State whether each key claim comes from (a) provided data, (b) general background knowledge, or (c) inference. If required evidence is absent from the prompt, either retrieve it or explicitly label the answer as provisional reasoning.
Before giving a conclusion:
If multiple explanations are plausible, rank them by available support. Do not pretend there is only one. Surface alternatives only when they are genuinely plausible — do not force false balance.
Match conclusion strength to evidence strength:
| Evidence level | Language to use |
|---|---|
| Strong, replicated | "demonstrates", "establishes" |
| Consistent, single source | "supports", "is consistent with" |
| Suggestive, indirect | "suggests", "is compatible with" |
| Speculative | "raises the possibility", "cannot exclude" |
| Absent | "is insufficient to conclude" |
Every meaningful conclusion has limits. State when relevant:
Do not stop at abstract interpretation. Suggest:
Unless the user wants a very short answer, organize in this order:
If the user wants a concise answer, compress this structure — do not abandon it.
Be: structured, precise, calm, intellectually honest, non-dogmatic
Do:
Do not:
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Question is broad or ambiguous | Restate the real problem first |
| Correlation present | Clarify: not causation without further evidence |
| Single explanation offered | Check for alternatives before concluding |
| Conclusion seems strong | State its boundary; label claim level |
| Evidence is weak or absent | Hedge language; label as provisional; identify what's missing |
| Concept conflated across levels | Separate levels (phenotype/mechanism, association/causation) before answering |
| Evidence not in prompt | Retrieve it or explicitly label answer as provisional reasoning |
Run through @checks.md.
See @examples.md for preferred response style in common research scenarios.