smithery/akaszubski

scientific-validation

Scientific method for validating claims with pre-registration, power analysis, statistical rigor, and Bayesian methods.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/akaszubski --skill scientific-validation

Summary

  • Scientific method for validating claims with pre-registration, power analysis, statistical rigor, and Bayesian methods.
  • Use when testing hypotheses, running experiments, or validating claims from papers.
  • TRIGGER when: validate, hypothesis, experiment, backtest, evidence, statistical test.
  • DO NOT TRIGGER when: routine coding, config changes, documentation, non-experimental tasks.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery/akaszubski.

npx skills add smithery/akaszubski

Browse all from smithery/akaszubski

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Allowed toolsRead, Grep, Glob, Bash, Write

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 7,345 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 261 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Scientific Validation Skill

Rigorous methodology for validating claims from any source - books, papers, theories, or intuition.

When This Skill Activates

  • Testing claims from books, papers, or expert sources
  • Validating rules, strategies, or hypotheses
  • Running experiments or backtests
  • Keywords: "validate", "test hypothesis", "experiment", "backtest", "prove", "evidence"

Core Principle

Data is the arbiter. Sources can be wrong.

  • Expert books can be wrong
  • Only empirical validation decides what works
  • Document negative results - they're valuable

Phase Overview

Phase Name Key Requirement
0 Claim Verification Understand what source ACTUALLY claims
1 Claims Extraction Document with source citations
1.5 Publication Bias Prevention Document ALL claims before selecting
2 Pre-Registration Hypothesis BEFORE seeing results
2.3 Power Analysis Calculate required n (MANDATORY)
3 Bias Prevention Look-ahead, survivorship, selection
3.5 Walk-Forward Required for time series (MANDATORY)
4 Statistical Requirements p-values, effect sizes, corrections
4.7 Bayesian Complement Bayes Factors for ambiguous results
5 Multi-Source Validation Test across 3+ contexts
5.3 Sensitivity Analysis ±20% parameter stability (MANDATORY)
5.5 Adversarial Review Invoke experiment-critic agent
6 Classification VALIDATED / REJECTED / INSUFFICIENT
7 Documentation Complete audit trail
7.3 Negative Results Structured failure documentation

See: workflow.md for detailed step-by-step instructions per phase.


Quick Reference

Claim Types

Type Testable? Example
PERFORMANCE YES "A beats B on metric X"
METHODOLOGICAL YES "A enables capability X"
PHILOSOPHICAL MAYBE "X is important because Y"
BEHAVIORAL HARD "Humans do X in situation Y"

Sample Size Requirements (80% Power)

Effect Size Cohen's d Required n
Small 0.2 394
Medium 0.5 64
Large 0.8 26

See: code-examples.md#power-analysis for calculation code.

Classification Criteria

Status Criteria
VALIDATED OOS meets all criteria + critic PROCEED
CONDITIONAL OOS meets relaxed criteria (p < 0.10)
REJECTED OOS fails OR negative effect
INSUFFICIENT n < 15 in OOS
UNTESTABLE Required data unavailable
INVALID Circular validation detected

Domain Effect Thresholds (Trading)

Metric Minimum Strong Exceptional
Sharpe Ratio > 0.5 > 1.0 > 2.0
Win Rate > 55% > 60% > 70%
Profit Factor > 1.2 > 1.5 > 2.0

See: code-examples.md#effect-thresholds for other domains.

Bayes Factor Interpretation

BF Evidence
< 1 Supports null
1-3 Anecdotal
3-10 Moderate
10-30 Strong
> 30 Very strong

Critical Rules

1. Pre-Registration

  • Document hypothesis BEFORE seeing any results
  • Define success criteria BEFORE testing
  • No peeking at test data

2. Power Analysis (Phase 2.3)

from statsmodels.stats.power import TTestIndPower
n = TTestIndPower().solve_power(effect_size=0.5, power=0.80, alpha=0.05)

Rule: Underpowered studies cannot achieve VALIDATED status.

3. Walk-Forward for Time Series (Phase 3.5)

  • Standard K-fold CV → INVALID (temporal leakage)
  • Single train/test → CONDITIONAL at best
  • Walk-forward → Can achieve VALIDATED

See: code-examples.md#walk-forward for implementation.

4. Multiple Comparison Correction

alpha_corrected = 0.05 / num_claims  # Bonferroni

For trading claims: require t-ratio > 3.0 (Harvey et al. standard).

5. Sensitivity Analysis (Phase 5.3)

Test ±20% parameter variation:

  • All variations positive → Can achieve VALIDATED
  • 1-2 sign flips → CONDITIONAL at best
  • 3+ sign flips → REJECTED (fragile)

See: code-examples.md#sensitivity-analysis for implementation.

6. Adversarial Review (Phase 5.5)

Use Task tool:
  subagent_type: "experiment-critic"
  prompt: "Review experiment EXP-XXX"

MANDATORY before any classification.


Bias Prevention Checklist

Bias Prevention
Look-ahead Process data sequentially, compare batch vs streaming
Survivorship Track ALL attempts, not just completions
Selection Report ALL experiments including failures
Data snooping Strict train/test split, no tuning on test data
Publication Document ALL claims before selecting which to test

Pre-Experiment Checklist

  • Claim extracted with source citation
  • ALL claims documented (not just tested ones)
  • Hypothesis documented BEFORE results
  • Power analysis: required n calculated
  • Success criteria defined
  • Walk-forward configured (time series)
  • Costs/constraints specified

Post-Experiment Checklist

  • Sample size adequate per power analysis
  • p-value AND effect size reported
  • Bayesian analysis if ambiguous
  • Sensitivity analysis passed
  • Adversarial review completed
  • Negative results documented if REJECTED

Red Flags

  • 100% success rate → Possible bias
  • OOS better than training → Possible leakage
  • Result flips with ±20% params → Fragile
  • Only tested "interesting" claims → Selection bias

Key Principles

  1. Hypothesis BEFORE data - No peeking
  2. Power analysis BEFORE experiment - Know required n
  3. Walk-forward for time series - Preserve temporal order
  4. Sensitivity analysis - Results must survive ±20% changes
  5. Adversarial self-critique - Challenge your methodology
  6. Document negative results - Failures are valuable
  7. Sources can be wrong - Even experts, even textbooks

Detailed Documentation

Topic File
Step-by-step workflow workflow.md
Python code examples code-examples.md
Markdown templates templates.md
Adversarial review ../../agents/experiment-critic.md

Hard Rules

FORBIDDEN:

  • Reporting results without confidence intervals or statistical significance
  • Cherry-picking favorable metrics while ignoring unfavorable ones
  • Claiming causation from correlation without controlled experiments

REQUIRED:

  • All experiments MUST have a documented hypothesis before execution
  • All results MUST include sample size, variance, and statistical test used
  • Negative results MUST be reported with the same rigor as positive results
  • Baselines MUST be established and compared against for every metric