negative-case-finder

Classifies contradictions to qualitative propositions into four negative case types with revision guidance.

265|23|Updated Feb 7, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/yipng05-max/-skills --skill negative-case-finder-yipng05-max
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: negative-case-finder
Source: https://github.com/yipng05-max/-skills/tree/main/negative-case-finder
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/yipng05-max/-skills --skill negative-case-finder-yipng05-max

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Helps researchers systematically identify cases that contradict a tentative qualitative claim, so the claim can be refined with clear boundary and mechanism adjustments instead of generic “opposing opinions.”

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Negative case classification (4 types): distinguishes genuine disconfirming cases, boundary cases, dimensional variations, and insufficient-data situations, each with a tailored revision direction.
  • Proposition-first targeting: parses the proposition’s conditions, mechanism, and falsification points before searching for contradictions, improving precision over vague disagreement hunting.
  • Guided proposition revision pipeline: produces structured outputs that culminate in concrete revision paths and a proposed revised proposition draft when applicable.
  • Best fit use cases: testing early-stage or mid-stage propositions in grounded-theory-style work, when you have coded materials or excerpts and want to strengthen explanatory scope and validity.

Quick Start

Tell the skill your one-sentence tentative proposition and paste the supporting coded excerpts or memo, then ask it to conduct negative case analysis and propose revision directions.

Frequently Asked Questions about negative-case-finder

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
What is negative case analysis in qualitative research?

Negative case analysis identifies cases that contradict a tentative qualitative proposition to refine its boundary conditions and mechanisms. It systematically classifies disconfirming evidence to strengthen a claim's explanatory scope and validity.

How do I find disconfirming cases to refine a grounded theory proposition?

To find disconfirming cases, parse your proposition's conditional range and mechanisms, then compare them against coded excerpts. Classify contradictions into genuine disconfirming, boundary, dimensional, or insufficient-data types to generate structured revision guidance.

Can I use negative case analysis for mid-stage proposition testing with coded memos?

Yes, negative case analysis suits mid-stage proposition testing when you have coded materials or memos. It processes these inputs to categorize contradictions and outputs concrete revision paths and a proposed revised proposition draft.

What is the best way to distinguish boundary cases from genuine disconfirming cases?

The best way to distinguish boundary cases from genuine disconfirming cases is through proposition-first targeting. This method parses the claim's conditions and falsification points to classify contradictions and provide tailored revision directions.

Does negative case analysis work for early-stage coding in qualitative research?

Negative case analysis applies to early-stage coding by testing tentative propositions with initial coded materials. It helps strengthen explanatory scope by identifying boundary variations and insufficient-data situations early in the theoretical construction process.