From scientific-method
Enforces evidence-first debugging for software bugs, incidents, flaky tests, and performance regressions with observation IDs, causality gates, hypothesis tests, and verification rules.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/scientific-method:evidence-first-debuggingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Primary responsibilities: observation recording, evidence IDs, causality validation, verification gates.
Primary responsibilities: observation recording, evidence IDs, causality validation, verification gates.
Load these references before producing any investigation output. A references index is available for a quick map of all shared files.
Load the applicable extension when the investigation type matches. Insert the extension's sections immediately after section 2 (OBSERVATIONS).
flowchart TD
Start([Identify investigation type]) --> Q1{Software bug or crash?}
Q1 -->|Yes| Dbg["Load [Debugging Extensions](../../shared/extensions/debugging-extensions.md)<br>Adds: CALL STACK, RECENT CODE CHANGES, DEPENDENCY GRAPH after section 2"]
Q1 -->|No| Q2{Latency, throughput, or memory regression?}
Q2 -->|Yes| Perf["Load [Performance Extensions](../../shared/extensions/performance-extensions.md)<br>Adds: BASELINE METRICS, REGRESSION WINDOW, HOT PATH ANALYSIS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION after section 2"]
Q2 -->|No| Neither[Proceed with base template only]
Enforce these for every investigation output, without exception.
Rule 1 — Facts only in FACTS / OBSERVATIONS / RESULTS
Write only directly observed signals. Causal language is permitted only when the Causality Gate classification is causal-supported. No guesses, no interpretation, no speculation.
Rule 2 — Label every hypothesis explicitly
Every hypothesis must state what it predicts and include a falsifiable test. Use the form:
H1: [specific causal mechanism]
Prediction: If H1 is true, we would observe [specific outcome]
Falsification test: [what would disprove H1]
Rule 3 — Reserve resolved-verified for verified outcomes
Output status: resolved-verified only when section 13 (Verification) contains a passing verification command with an evidence ID. If section 13 is absent or empty, the status must be mitigated, unresolved, or unknown.
Rule 4 — Cite evidence IDs on every claim
Every statement in FACTS or RESULTS must end with an evidence ID in brackets — e.g., [E3]. Statements without a citable evidence ID must be labeled UNKNOWN.
Rule 5 — Disclose all truncated output
When any output is abbreviated, include a truncation disclosure block immediately after the snippet:
TRUNCATED
total lines: <N>
shown: <M>
method: head | tail | grep
fingerprint: <sha256 or key tokens>
command: <exact command used>
Silent abbreviation is prohibited.
Choose exactly one per investigation output. Include it in section 14 of the investigation template.
flowchart TD
Start([Choose investigation status]) --> Q1{Is the issue resolved?}
Q1 -->|No — still occurring| Unresolved[status: unresolved]
Q1 -->|Partially — symptoms reduced but root cause unknown| Mitigated[status: mitigated]
Q1 -->|Yes — fix applied| Q2{Does section 13 contain a passing verification command with evidence?}
Q2 -->|Yes| Verified[status: resolved-verified]
Q2 -->|No — verification missing or inconclusive| Unknown[status: unknown]
Before emitting any investigation output, verify all items.
resolved-verified is used only when section 13 contains passing verification evidencenpx claudepluginhub jamie-bitflight/claude_skills --plugin scientific-methodGuides evidence-driven debugging: state hypothesis, add minimal instrumentation (logs, breakpoints, probes), record observations to confirm or refute theories in async, distributed, or production systems.
Investigates bugs using falsifiable hypotheses, systematic elimination, and structured logging. Useful for root-cause analysis of complex or intermittent failures.
Walks through evidence-first debugging: clarify expected behavior, reproduce, hypothesize, and plan fixes before changing code.