Counterargument
Academic research agent skills for Claude Code and other Agent Skills-compatible tools. Hypothesis generation, experiment design, paper drafting, peer review simulation, and more.
npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill counterargumentAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing 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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Generates rigorous devil's advocate critiques from methodological, theoretical, and practical perspectives. Use when the user asks to challenge their own work, find weaknesses, stress-test assumptions, anticipate reviewer objections, or argue against their research claims. Run BEFORE writing a draft for stronger papers.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
2.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Counterargument Generation
Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
Perspectives
| Perspective | Icon | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Methodological | 🔬 | Study design, measurement validity, statistical approach, reproducibility |
| Theoretical | 📚 | Conceptual framework, alternative explanations, literature gaps |
| Practical | ⚙️ | Feasibility, generalizability, real-world applicability, ethical concerns |
Workflow
- Identify the core claims — extract the main hypotheses or arguments
- Generate 4–6 critiques — at least one per perspective, more for weaker claims
- Rate severity — HIGH (fatal flaw), MEDIUM (significant concern), LOW (minor point)
- Provide rebuttal strategy — for each critique, suggest how to respond or strengthen the research
Output Format
# ⚔️ Counterargument Analysis
## Summary
[2–3 sentences: overall assessment of the research's vulnerability to critique]
## Counterarguments
### 📚 Theoretical Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
**Challenged Claim:** [Exact claim being challenged]
**Critique:** [Specific, evidence-grounded critique. Reference timescales, measurement limits,
alternative frameworks, or published contradictory evidence where possible.]
**Rebuttal Strategy:** [Concrete suggestion: what experiment, analysis, or argument would
address this critique]
---
### 🔬 Methodological Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
...
Quality criteria
- Specific: Reference exact claims, timescales, measurements — not vague "this is uncertain"
- Grounded: Connect to actual limitations in the content, not generic criticism
- Expert-level: Write as a senior reviewer at a top journal would
- Constructive: Every critique ends with a path forward (rebuttal strategy)
Examples of strong vs weak critiques
Weak: "The sample size might be too small."
Strong: "The proposed sample of n=15 animals achieves 80% power only for effect sizes of η²≥0.25. Given the typical effect sizes in STDP studies (η²=0.10–0.15, e.g., Bi & Poo 1998), this is underpowered. A power analysis targeting η²=0.12 would require n=38 per condition."