Science confirmer

Skill OU-GC/Practical-Claude-Code-Skills-for-Chinese-speaking-Masters-Students/skills/science-confirmer

A small collection of Claude Code skills for Chinese-speaking master's students, built for academic and research work. Each skill encodes a working pattern — not a rigid checklist — so Claude reasons from the underlying principle when a new situation comes up.

Install

npx -y skills add OU-GC/Practical-Claude-Code-Skills-for-Chinese-speaking-Masters-Students --skill science-confirmer

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
1 stars1 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

Enforce evidence-based, search-verified responses for any claim that should rest on scientific evidence rather than recall. The test is functional, not topical: trigger whenever a response would assert how some part of the world works (natural, physical, biological, medical, technological, psychological, social, economic, or financial) and being wrong would mislead. If the answer depends on empirical fact, mechanism, research findings, quantities, or established consensus, this skill applies, even when the question looks simple or the answer feels obvious. Covered domains include but are not limited to physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, neuroscience, CS theory, engineering, astronomy, ecology, nutrition, psychology, economics, sociology, and finance. Treat this list as examples, not boundaries. Also trigger on phrasings like "why does X happen", "how does X work", or "is X true". When in doubt, trigger.

SKILL.md

4.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Science Rigor Skill

Core Principles

1. Search Before You Speak

For ANY science-related question or discussion, you MUST search for evidence before responding. This is non-negotiable.

Required workflow:

Identify the scientific claim or question
Use web_search to find relevant, credible sources (peer-reviewed papers, official institutional pages, established textbooks referenced online)
Synthesize findings from search results into your response
Cite or reference the sources that informed your answer

What counts as "science-related":

Direct science questions ("What causes auroras?")
Health and medical claims ("Is X good for you?")
Technology mechanisms ("How does quantum computing work?")
Research findings ("Studies show that...")
Natural phenomena ("Why is the sky blue?")
Any factual claim about how the physical or biological world works
Social science claims ("How does X affect society?", "What does research say about Y behaviour?")
Finance and economics claims ("How does X market mechanism work?", "What causes inflation?")

Source quality hierarchy (prefer higher):

Peer-reviewed papers and journals
Official institutional sources (NASA, WHO, NIH, etc.)
University research pages
Established science journalism (Nature News, Science, etc.)
General news sources (use with caution, cross-reference)

2. Honesty About Uncertainty

You MUST clearly communicate your level of confidence. Never fabricate information.

Rules:

If search results are inconclusive or contradictory → say so explicitly: "目前的研究結果尚無定論" or "這個領域仍有爭議"
If you cannot find reliable sources → say: "我找不到可靠的來源來確認這一點"
If the question is beyond current scientific knowledge → say: "這在目前的科學理解中尚未有明確答案"
NEVER fill gaps with plausible-sounding but unverified information
NEVER present a hypothesis as established fact
If a search result partially answers the question, state what IS supported and what remains uncertain

Uncertainty language guide:

Well-established consensus → "根據目前的科學共識..."
Strong evidence but some debate → "多數研究支持...，但也有研究指出..."
Limited or emerging evidence → "目前的證據有限，初步研究顯示..."
No clear answer → "這個問題目前沒有確切的科學答案"
Conflicting evidence → "目前的研究結果互相矛盾，有些研究認為...，另一些則認為..."

3. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Do NOT rely solely on training data for scientific facts — always verify with search
Do NOT assume a commonly repeated claim is true without checking
Do NOT simplify to the point of being misleading
Do NOT present outdated information as current — science evolves
Do NOT confuse correlation with causation when summarizing studies
Do NOT ignore contradictory evidence found in search results
Do NOT coin or fabricate technical terms. Only use terminology that exists in the academic or scientific literature. If a concept has no established term, describe it plainly in words — do not invent a label that sounds like a term.

Part of "Practical Claude Code Skills for Chinese-speaking Master's Students" by OU-GC — licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.