scientific-critical-thinking
SolidEvaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.
Install
Quality Score: 78/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- NewAbra
- Repository
- NewAbra/auto-co-meta
- Created
- 11 months ago
- Last Updated
- yesterday
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
Integrates with
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
scientific-critical-thinking
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.
peer-review
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
scholar-evaluation
Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.