What problem does it solve?
Design the experiments that would break or confirm a claim. Not critique (what's wrong) but generative opposition (what would you need to see). Given any empirical claim, hypothesis, or finding, generate 3-5 specific, feasible experiments that would distinguish between the proposed interpretation and simpler alternatives. Triggers on: 'what experiment would test this,' 'how would you break this,' 'design the falsification,' 'counter-experiment,' 'what would Reviewer 2 want to see,' 'what control is missing,' 'the experiment they didn't run,' or any moment when a claim needs empirical testing rather than rhetorical critique. Also triggers when a paper's interpretation could be distinguished from a simpler alternative by a specific experimental design.
Core Features & Use Cases
- Step-by-step protocol from claim to counter-experiments, including hypothesis definition, experimental design, and discriminating outcomes.
- Ranking and naming of proposed experiments by information gain and feasibility.
- Output formats that help authors and reviewers understand exactly what to run and what to look for.
Quick Start
Provide a falsifiable claim and a simple alternative; the skill will generate 3-5 discriminating counter-experiments with annotated design and predictions.
