domains / families / research / scientific-critical-thinking

scientific-critical-thinking

combined

Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-review. Evaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.

When to use

• Evaluating research methodology and experimental design
• Assessing statistical validity and evidence quality
• Identifying biases and confounding in studies
• Reviewing scientific claims and conclusions
• Conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses
• Applying GRADE or Cochrane risk of bias assessments
• Providing critical analysis of research papers

When not to use

• Formal peer review writing

Skill page

Conflict

The K-Dense-AI copy is the most rigorous and current procedure, featuring a specific 6-step 'Appraisal Workflow' (fixing the question, extracting evidence, assessing design, choosing frameworks, synthesizing, and writing a traceable critique) and strict constraints on visual aids. The other three copies (Vibe-Skills, medical-research-skills, and Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills) are largely identical to each other, containing a more verbose 'Core Capabilities' section with detailed checklists for validity and bias, but they lack the structured workflow of the K-Dense version and instead mandate the default generation of schematics. Because the K-Dense version provides a superior procedural framework while the others provide more granular evaluation checklists, and they disagree on the handling of visual aids, they should be combined.