Science
Customization
Before executing, check for user customizations at:
~/.claude/PAI/USER/SKILLCUSTOMIZATIONS/Science/
If this directory exists, load and apply any PREFERENCES.md, configurations, or resources found there. These override default behavior. If the directory does not exist, proceed with skill defaults.
🚨 MANDATORY: Voice Notification (REQUIRED BEFORE ANY ACTION)
You MUST send this notification BEFORE doing anything else when this skill is invoked.
-
Send voice notification:
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:31337/notify \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"message": "Running the WORKFLOWNAME workflow in the Science skill to ACTION"}' \ > /dev/null 2>&1 & -
Output text notification:
Running the **WorkflowName** workflow in the **Science** skill to ACTION...
This is not optional. Execute this curl command immediately upon skill invocation.
Science - The Universal Algorithm
The scientific method applied to everything. The meta-skill that governs all other skills.
The Universal Cycle
GOAL -----> What does success look like?
|
OBSERVE --> What is the current state?
|
HYPOTHESIZE -> What might work? (Generate MULTIPLE)
|
EXPERIMENT -> Design and run the test
|
MEASURE --> What happened? (Data collection)
|
ANALYZE --> How does it compare to the goal?
|
ITERATE --> Adjust hypothesis and repeat
|
+------> Back to HYPOTHESIZE
The goal is CRITICAL. Without clear success criteria, you cannot judge results.
Workflow Routing
Output when executing: Running the **WorkflowName** workflow in the **Science** skill to ACTION...
Core Workflows
| Trigger | Workflow |
|---|---|
| "define the goal", "what are we trying to achieve" | Workflows/DefineGoal.md |
| "what might work", "ideas", "hypotheses" | Workflows/GenerateHypotheses.md |
| "how do we test", "experiment design" | Workflows/DesignExperiment.md |
| "what happened", "measure", "results" | Workflows/MeasureResults.md |
| "analyze", "compare to goal" | Workflows/AnalyzeResults.md |
| "iterate", "try again", "next cycle" | Workflows/Iterate.md |
| Full structured cycle | Workflows/FullCycle.md |
Diagnostic Workflows
| Trigger | Workflow |
|---|---|
| Quick debugging (15-min rule) | Workflows/QuickDiagnosis.md |
| Complex investigation | Workflows/StructuredInvestigation.md |
Resource Index
| Resource | Description |
|---|---|
METHODOLOGY.md |
Deep dive into each phase |
Protocol.md |
How skills implement Science |
Templates.md |
Goal, Hypothesis, Experiment, Results templates |
Examples.md |
Worked examples across scales |
Domain Applications
| Domain | Manifestation | Related Skill |
|---|---|---|
| Coding | TDD (Red-Green-Refactor) | Development |
| Products | MVP -> Measure -> Iterate | Development |
| Research | Question -> Study -> Analyze | Research |
| Prompts | Prompt -> Eval -> Iterate | Evals |
| Decisions | Options -> Council -> Choose | Council |
Scale of Application
| Level | Cycle Time | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | Minutes | TDD: test, code, refactor |
| Meso | Hours-Days | Feature: spec, implement, validate |
| Macro | Weeks-Months | Product: MVP, launch, measure PMF |
Integration Points
| Phase | Skills to Invoke |
|---|---|
| Goal | Council for validation |
| Observe | Research for context |
| Hypothesize | Council for ideas, RedTeam for stress-test |
| Experiment | Development (Worktrees) for parallel tests |
| Measure | Evals for structured measurement |
| Analyze | Council for multi-perspective analysis |
Key Principles (Quick Reference)
- Goal-First - Define success before starting
- Hypothesis Plurality - NEVER just one idea (minimum 3)
- Minimum Viable Experiments - Smallest test that teaches
- Falsifiability - Experiments must be able to fail
- Measure What Matters - Only goal-relevant data
- Honest Analysis - Compare to goal, not expectations
- Rapid Iteration - Cycle speed > perfect experiments
Anti-Patterns
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
| "Make it better" | "Reduce load time from 3s to 1s" |
| "I think X will work" | "Here are 3 approaches: X, Y, Z" |
| "Prove I'm right" | "Design test that could disprove" |
| "Pretend failure didn't happen" | "What did we learn?" |
| "Keep experimenting forever" | "Ship and learn from production" |
Quick Start
- Goal - What does success look like?
- Observe - What do we know?
- Hypothesize - At least 3 ideas
- Experiment - Minimum viable tests
- Measure - Collect goal-relevant data
- Analyze - Compare to success criteria
- Iterate - Adjust and repeat
The answer emerges from the cycle, not from guessing.
Gotchas
- Hypothesis-test-analyze is the core loop. Don't skip the hypothesis step — going straight to testing is just trial-and-error, not science.
- Minimum 3 hypotheses before testing. Single-hypothesis testing is confirmation bias.
- Measurements must be specific and reproducible. "It seems better" is not a measurement.
- Full cycle is for systematic investigation. For quick debugging, use quick diagnosis mode.
Examples
Example 1: Quick diagnosis
User: "figure out why Surface time filters show stale items"
→ Quick diagnosis mode
→ Hypothesis: timestamp format mismatch in D1
→ Test: query D1 for actual stored format
→ Analyze: compare stored vs expected format
→ Result: ISO string vs Unix timestamp mismatch
Example 2: Full systematic investigation
User: "experiment with different prompt structures for better output"
→ Full cycle mode
→ 3+ hypotheses generated
→ Controlled experiments with measurements
→ Analysis identifies winning approach
→ Iterates until convergence
Execution Log
After completing any workflow, append a single JSONL entry:
echo '{"ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","skill":"Science","workflow":"WORKFLOW_USED","input":"8_WORD_SUMMARY","status":"ok|error","duration_s":SECONDS}' >> ~/.claude/PAI/MEMORY/SKILLS/execution.jsonl
Replace WORKFLOW_USED with the workflow executed, 8_WORD_SUMMARY with a brief input description, and SECONDS with approximate wall-clock time. Log status: "error" if the workflow failed.
More from danielmiessler/personal_ai_infrastructure
osint
Structured OSINT investigations — people lookup, company intel, investment due diligence, entity/threat intel, domain recon, organization research using public sources with ethical authorization framework. USE WHEN OSINT, due diligence, background check, research person, company intel, investigate, company lookup, domain lookup, entity lookup, organization lookup, threat intel, discover OSINT sources.
259firstprinciples
Physics-based reasoning framework (Musk/Elon methodology) that deconstructs problems to irreducible fundamental truths rather than reasoning by analogy. Three-step structure: DECONSTRUCT (break to constituent parts and actual values), CHALLENGE (classify every element as hard constraint / soft constraint / unvalidated assumption — only physics is truly immutable), RECONSTRUCT (build optimal solution from fundamentals alone, ignoring inherited form). Outputs: constituent-parts breakdown, constraint classification table, and reconstructed solution with key insight. Three workflows: Deconstruct.md, Challenge.md, Reconstruct.md. Integrates with RedTeam (attack assumptions before deploying adversarial agents), Security (decompose threat model), Architecture (challenge design constraints), and Pentesters (decompose assumed security boundaries). Other skills invoke via: Challenge on all stated constraints → classify as hard/soft/assumption. Cross-domain synthesis: solutions from unrelated fields often apply once the fundamental truths are exposed. NOT FOR incident investigation and causal chains (use RootCauseAnalysis). NOT FOR structural feedback loops (use SystemsThinking). USE WHEN first principles, fundamental truths, challenge assumptions, is this a real constraint, rebuild from scratch, what are we actually paying for, what is this really made of, start over, physics first, question everything, reasoning by analogy, is this really necessary.
160documents
Read, write, convert, and analyze documents — routes to PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX sub-skills for creation, editing, extraction, and format conversion. USE WHEN document, process file, create document, convert format, extract text, PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, Word, Excel, spreadsheet, PowerPoint, presentation, slides, consulting report, large PDF, merge PDF, fill form, tracked changes, redlining.
114council
Multi-agent collaborative debate that produces visible round-by-round transcripts with genuine intellectual friction. All council members are custom-composed via ComposeAgent (Agents skill) with domain expertise, unique voice, and personality tailored to the specific topic — never built-in generic types. ComposeAgent invoked as: bun run ~/.claude/skills/Agents/Tools/ComposeAgent.ts. Two workflows: DEBATE (3 rounds, full transcript + synthesis, parallel execution within rounds, 40-90 seconds total) and QUICK (1 round, fast perspective check). Context files: CouncilMembers.md (agent composition instructions), RoundStructure.md (three-round structure and timing), OutputFormat.md (transcript format templates). Agents are designed per debate topic to create real disagreement; 4-6 well-composed agents outperform 12 generic ones. Council is collaborative-adversarial (debate to find best path); for pure adversarial attack on an idea, use RedTeam instead. NOT FOR parallel task execution across agents (use Delegation skill). USE WHEN council, debate, multiple perspectives, weigh options, deliberate, get different views, multi-agent discussion, what would experts say, is there consensus, pros and cons from multiple angles.
112privateinvestigator
Ethical people-finding using 15 parallel research agents (45 search threads) across public records, social media, reverse lookups. Public data only, no pretexting. USE WHEN find person, locate, reconnect, people search, skip trace, reverse lookup, social media search, public records search, verify identity.
112redteam
Military-grade adversarial analysis that deploys 32 parallel expert agents (engineers, architects, pentesters, interns) to stress-test ideas, strategies, and plans — not systems or infrastructure. Two workflows: ParallelAnalysis (5-phase: decompose into 24 atomic claims → 32-agent parallel attack → synthesis → steelman → counter-argument, each 8 points) and AdversarialValidation (competing proposals synthesized into best solution). Context files: Philosophy.md (core principles, success criteria, agent types), Integration.md (how to combine with FirstPrinciples, Council, and other skills; output format). Targets arguments, not network vulnerabilities. Findings ranked by severity; goal is to strengthen, not destroy — weaknesses delivered with remediation paths. Collaborates with FirstPrinciples (decompose assumptions before attacking) and Council (Council debates to find paths; RedTeam attacks whatever survives). Also invoked internally by Ideate (TEST phase) and WorldThreatModel (horizon stress-testing). NOT FOR AI instruction set auditing (use BitterPillEngineering). NOT FOR network/system vulnerability testing (use a security assessment skill). USE WHEN red team, attack idea, counterarguments, critique, stress test, devil's advocate, find weaknesses, break this, poke holes, what could go wrong, strongest objection, adversarial validation, battle of bots.
112