Science

Convert goals, hypotheses, and experiments into an evidence-based decision loop.

1|Updated Apr 16, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/davdunc/pai-framework --skill science-davdunc
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: Science
Source: https://github.com/davdunc/pai-framework/tree/main/skills/Science
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/davdunc/pai-framework --skill science-davdunc

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Science helps you replace vague intuition with goal-driven, falsifiable investigation so you can decide what to do next based on evidence rather than confirmation bias.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Goal-first success criteria: define measurable indicators, thresholds, constraints, and anti-goals before running any tests.
  • Hypothesis plurality and falsification: generate multiple hypotheses (minimum 3), make each testable, and design experiments that could disprove them.
  • Full evidence loop: measure results, analyze against pre-committed criteria, and iterate (or ship) with documented learnings.
  • Diagnostic shortcuts: use QuickDiagnosis for under-15-minute debugging, or StructuredInvestigation for multi-factor problems needing careful documentation.

Use cases include debugging complex systems, validating product or prompt changes via structured evaluation, and conducting research-grade investigations across micro/meso/macro timescales.

Quick Start

Use the Science skill to run QuickDiagnosis on the issue “users still get a 500 error during login” by generating at least three hypotheses, testing the fastest to verify, and updating the plan based on what you observe.

Frequently Asked Questions about Science

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I structure experiment design to test multiple hypotheses for debugging?

Experiment design for debugging requires generating a minimum of three falsifiable hypotheses and defining pre-committed success criteria before testing. This structured investigation replaces vague intuition with an evidence-based decision loop that measures results objectively and plans iterative next actions.

What is the best way to run prompt evaluation using the scientific method?

Prompt evaluation using the scientific method applies goal-first success criteria to define measurable thresholds and anti-goals. By generating multiple testable hypotheses, you can measure prompt outputs against pre-committed constraints and analyze the evidence to decide whether to iterate or ship.

How do I conduct a quick diagnosis for a complex system error under a tight deadline?

A quick diagnosis for complex system errors uses a shortcut method designed for under fifteen minutes. It accelerates debugging by generating at least three hypotheses, testing the fastest one to verify, and updating the action plan based on the observed evidence.

Can I use structured investigation for macro scale research spanning weeks or months?

Structured investigation supports research investigations across micro, meso, and macro scales spanning minutes to months. It handles multi-factor problems by enforcing hypothesis plurality, pre-committed success criteria, structured measurement, and objective analysis to document learnings over extended periods.

When should I avoid relying on intuition for ambiguous problem solving?

You should avoid relying on intuition for ambiguous problem solving when confirmation bias risks skewing decisions. Converting goals into an evidence-based decision loop with falsifiable tests ensures objective analysis and structured measurement guide your next actions.

Does this approach to iteration and data analysis require predefined anti-goals?

Yes, goal-first success criteria require defining measurable indicators, thresholds, constraints, and anti-goals before running any tests. This ensures iteration and data analysis remain objective and aligned with falsifiable outcomes throughout the evidence loop.