「evidence-based reasoning」の検索結果

Meta-cognitive reasoning specialist for evidence-based analysis, hypothesis testing, and cognitive failure prevention. Use when conducting reviews, making assessments, debugging complex issues, or any task requiring rigorous analytical reasoning. Prevents premature conclusions, assumption-based errors, and pattern matching without verification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a problem requires structured step-by-step reasoning before acting. Prevents jumping to conclusions or guessing root causes without evidence. Triggers on complex debugging, multi-step analysis, hypothesis verification, or when mk:fix invokes diagnosis phase. NOT for being stuck on approach (too many implementations, forced assumptions, innovation block) — use mk:problem-solving instead.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evidence-based medical knowledge and research mentor grounded in the Bian Que tradition. Covers clinical reasoning, diagnostic thinking (望闻问切), pharmacology, pathology, differential diagnosis, medical literature appraisal, and the philosophy of early intervention. Trigger whenever users ask about medicine, clinical science, drugs, disease mechanisms, diagnosis, lab interpretation, treatment comparison, or health sciences. Even without explicit research framing, trigger on any topic touching disease, therapeutics, or clinical decision-making. Part of the AIPOCH Medical Research Skill Hub.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evidence-based clinical decision support and diagnostic reasoning

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use this skill to apply the rigorous epidemiological reasoning of Julie E. Buring (epidemiologist and women's health trialist) to study design, clinical trial critiques, cardiovascular risk assessment, and evidence-based integrative medicine. Trigger this skill whenever you are evaluating medical literature, designing cohort studies or RCTs, assessing conflicting research findings, or analyzing cardiovascular risk factors (especially in women). Reach for this when users ask about the validity of supplements, the discrepancy between observational and randomized data, or how to future-proof a clinical registry.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Primary and secondary source analysis for historical reasoning. Covers source classification, sourcing (author/context/purpose), corroboration across multiple sources, contextualization within time and place, and bias detection. Use when evaluating historical evidence, assessing source reliability, or constructing evidence-based historical arguments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when facing unknowns, debugging without a clear cause, or making architecture decisions — enforces hypothesis-driven scientific reasoning through observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, experiment design, and evidence-based conclusion. Use when previous attempts have failed or the problem space involves uncertainty.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Specialized research and analysis prompt methodology for Claude. Provides 11 tested approaches (3 identity, 4 reasoning, 4 output) for data analysis, policy research, systematic evidence review, investigative research, and research-specific deliverables. Use when building prompts for quantitative data interpretation, evidence-based policy recommendations, literature reviews, causal analysis, hypothesis-driven investigation, or briefing documents. Trigger on: "prompt for data analysis," "research prompt," "policy brief prompt," "literature review prompt," "prompt for investigating," "systematic review prompt," "build a prompt for evidence synthesis," "causal analysis prompt," "briefing document prompt." Also use when user describes a research or analytical task and needs a structured Claude prompt for it. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available) or auditing Claude Projects (use rootnode-project-audit if available).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reliability gate for answers. Forces evidence-based reasoning, explicit uncertainty, and “insufficient information” instead of guesses. Use when user says “be 100% sure”, “no hallucinations”, “only if verified”, “grounded answer”, or when stakes are high.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reliability gate for answers. Forces evidence-based reasoning, explicit uncertainty, and “insufficient information” instead of guesses. Use when user says “be 100% sure”, “no hallucinations”, “only if verified”, “grounded answer”, or when stakes are high.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when stuck on approach (not debugging). Strategic unsticking via 7 non-default techniques: simplification cascades, collision-zone thinking, meta-pattern recognition, inversion, scale game, first principles, via negativa. Triggers on complexity spiraling, innovation block, recurring patterns across domains, forced-assumption solutions, scale uncertainty, told-it's-impossible, or bloated systems needing subtraction. For evidence-based root-cause debugging, use mk:sequential-thinking instead.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Produces a diagnostic report; mk:fix owns remediation and mk:build-fix owns compile/build failures. Use when asked to "debug this", "fix this bug", "why is this broken", "investigate this error", or "root cause analysis". Proactively suggest when the user reports errors, unexpected behavior, or is troubleshooting why something stopped working. NOT for applying fixes without investigation (see mk:fix); NOT for step-by-step evidence-based reasoning (see mk:sequential-thinking).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verify like Fable 5 — obsessive, systematic, evidence-based quality assurance woven into your reasoning. Use this skill when you have just written or modified code, need to confirm something works, are running tests, or need to validate output against requirements.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

[21] UNDERSTAND. Deep research workflow for this project using 150% scope (100% core + 50% boundary), evidence-based reasoning, and structured investigation notes. Use when the task requires investigation, root-cause analysis, or mapping unknown areas. Always maintain a research log file that captures findings, hypotheses, and next branches; use web.run when external verification is needed.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。