Evidence synthesis
Skill cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/skills/evidence-synthesis
11 problem-shaped skills backed by 97 sourced reasoning patterns — Curie to Toulmin, as Claude Code agents. Every claim cites its source; a pre-commit gate blocks unsourced constants. Install the gates alone in 30s (zetetic-gates). The only agent system where "I don't know" is a feature.
npx -y skills add cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents --skill evidence-synthesisAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 7 stars7 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Turn a pile of sources into a defensible claim. Use for "what does the literature actually say?", conflicting studies or benchmarks, "is this result trustworthy?", arguments that need claim-evidence-warrant structure, qualitative data needing coding, or a theory with no catalog of its own contradicting evidence.
SKILL.md
2.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Evidence Synthesis
Problem shape: multiple sources (papers, benchmarks, interviews, texts) must be combined into one graded conclusion — and the current draft cherry-picks, skips heterogeneity, or has no explicit warrant connecting evidence to claim.
Relevant geniuses
| Agent | Use when |
|---|---|
| cochrane | studies must be systematically found, graded, and pooled; publication bias suspected; effect sizes needed, not vote-counting |
| toulmin | an argument needs explicit claim-evidence-warrant structure with qualifiers and rebuttals; standards differ by field |
| feynman | a result is suspiciously clean; a citation is used without the ability to rederive it; integrity audit before publishing |
| darwin | evidence accumulates over a long horizon; the theory needs a difficulty book of its own contradictions; hardest case first |
| laplace | evidence must update a belief quantitatively — priors, likelihoods, calibration |
| gadamer | sources must be interpreted, not just counted — pre-understandings audited, the charitable reading found first |
| strauss | qualitative data (interviews, tickets, reviews) needs open/axial coding until saturation, not anecdote-picking |
| geertz | the evidence is behavior in context — thick description and emic vs etic separation before conclusions |
Invocation
- Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run
tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>"and take the top ranked match. - Load it:
tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>", then readagents/genius/<agent>.mdin full. - Apply the agent's
<workflow>step by step and answer in its<output-format>. Every synthesized claim carries its evidence grade and its strongest known counter-evidence (coding-standards §8: no source, no claim). - Typical chain: cochrane grades the corpus → toulmin structures the argument
→ feynman audits the integrity. Run via
tools/genius-invoker.sh compose cochrane toulmin -- "<problem>". - If no shape above matches, use a standard team agent instead.
Refuse when
- The conclusion is fixed in advance and only supporting sources are wanted.
- Primary sources are unavailable and only summaries-of-summaries exist — say "I don't know" rather than synthesize hearsay.