Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/research-claim-map/resources/template.md
+++ b/skills/research-claim-map/resources/template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,338 @@
+# Research Claim Map Template
+
+## Workflow
+
+Copy this checklist and track your progress:
+
+```
+Research Claim Map Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Define claim precisely
+- [ ] Step 2: Gather evidence for and against
+- [ ] Step 3: Rate evidence quality
+- [ ] Step 4: Assess source credibility
+- [ ] Step 5: Identify limitations
+- [ ] Step 6: Synthesize conclusion
+```
+
+**Step 1: Define claim precisely**
+
+Restate as specific, testable assertion with numbers, dates, clear terms. See [Claim Reformulation](#claim-reformulation-examples).
+
+**Step 2: Gather evidence for and against**
+
+Find sources supporting and contradicting claim. See [Evidence Categories](#evidence-categories).
+
+**Step 3: Rate evidence quality**
+
+Apply evidence hierarchy (primary > secondary > tertiary). See [Evidence Quality Rating](#evidence-quality-rating).
+
+**Step 4: Assess source credibility**
+
+Evaluate expertise, independence, track record, methodology. See [Credibility Assessment](#source-credibility-scoring).
+
+**Step 5: Identify limitations**
+
+Document gaps, assumptions, uncertainties. See [Limitations Documentation](#limitations-and-gaps).
+
+**Step 6: Synthesize conclusion**
+
+Determine confidence level (0-100%) and recommendation. See [Confidence Calibration](#confidence-level-calibration).
+
+---
+
+## Research Claim Map Template
+
+### 1. Claim Statement
+
+**Original claim**: [Quote exact claim as stated]
+
+**Reformulated claim** (specific, testable): [Restate with precise terms, numbers, dates, scope]
+
+**Why this claim matters**: [Decision impact, stakes, consequences if true/false]
+
+**Key terms defined**:
+- [Term 1]: [Definition to avoid ambiguity]
+- [Term 2]: [Definition]
+
+---
+
+### 2. Evidence For
+
+| Source | Evidence Type | Quality | Credibility | Summary |
+|--------|--------------|---------|-------------|---------|
+| [Source name/link] | [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [What it says] |
+| | | | | |
+| | | | | |
+
+**Strongest evidence for**:
+1. [Most compelling evidence with explanation why it's strong]
+2. [Second strongest]
+
+---
+
+### 3. Evidence Against
+
+| Source | Evidence Type | Quality | Credibility | Summary |
+|--------|--------------|---------|-------------|---------|
+| [Source name/link] | [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [What it says] |
+| | | | | |
+| | | | | |
+
+**Strongest evidence against**:
+1. [Most compelling counter-evidence with explanation]
+2. [Second strongest]
+
+---
+
+### 4. Source Credibility Analysis
+
+**For each major source, evaluate:**
+
+**Source: [Name/Link]**
+- **Expertise**: [H/M/L] - [Why: credentials, domain knowledge]
+- **Independence**: [H/M/L] - [Conflicts of interest, bias, incentives]
+- **Track Record**: [H/M/L] - [Prior accuracy, corrections, reputation]
+- **Methodology**: [H/M/L] - [How they obtained information, transparency]
+- **Overall credibility**: [H/M/L]
+
+**Source: [Name/Link]**
+- **Expertise**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
+- **Independence**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
+- **Track Record**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
+- **Methodology**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
+- **Overall credibility**: [H/M/L]
+
+---
+
+### 5. Limitations and Gaps
+
+**What's unknown or uncertain**:
+- [Gap 1: What evidence is missing]
+- [Gap 2: What couldn't be verified]
+- [Gap 3: What's ambiguous or unclear]
+
+**Assumptions made**:
+- [Assumption 1: What we're assuming to be true]
+- [Assumption 2]
+
+**Quality concerns**:
+- [Concern 1: Weaknesses in evidence or methodology]
+- [Concern 2]
+
+**Further investigation needed**:
+- [What additional evidence would increase confidence]
+- [What questions remain unanswered]
+
+---
+
+### 6. Conclusion
+
+**Confidence level**: [0-100%]
+
+**Confidence reasoning**:
+- [Why this confidence level based on evidence quality, source credibility, limitations]
+
+**Assessment**: [Choose one]
+- ✓ **Claim validated** (70-100% confidence) - Evidence strongly supports claim
+- ≈ **Claim partially true** (40-69% confidence) - Mixed or weak evidence, requires nuance
+- ✗ **Claim rejected** (0-39% confidence) - Evidence contradicts or insufficient support
+
+**Recommendation**:
+[Action to take based on this assessment - what should be believed, decided, or done]
+
+**Key caveats**:
+- [Important qualification 1]
+- [Important qualification 2]
+
+---
+
+## Guidance for Each Section
+
+### Claim Reformulation Examples
+
+**Vague → Specific:**
+- ❌ "Product X is better" → ✓ "Product X loads pages 50% faster than Product Y on benchmark Z"
+- ❌ "Most customers are satisfied" → ✓ "NPS score ≥50 based on survey of ≥1000 customers in Q3 2024"
+- ❌ "Studies show it works" → ✓ "≥3 peer-reviewed RCTs show ≥20% improvement vs placebo, p<0.05"
+
+**Avoid:**
+- Subjective terms ("better", "significant", "many")
+- Undefined metrics ("performance", "quality", "efficiency")
+- Vague time ranges ("recently", "long-term")
+- Unclear comparisons ("faster", "cheaper" - than what?)
+
+### Evidence Categories
+
+**Primary (Strongest):**
+- Original research data, raw datasets
+- Direct measurements, transaction logs
+- First-hand testimony from participants
+- Legal documents, contracts, financial filings
+- Photographs, videos of events (verified authentic)
+
+**Secondary (Medium):**
+- Analysis/synthesis of primary sources
+- Peer-reviewed research papers
+- News reporting citing primary sources
+- Expert analysis with transparent methodology
+- Government/institutional reports
+
+**Tertiary (Weakest):**
+- Summaries of secondary sources
+- Textbooks, encyclopedias, Wikipedia
+- Press releases, marketing content
+- Opinion pieces, editorials
+- Anecdotal reports
+
+**Non-Evidence (Unreliable):**
+- Social media claims without verification
+- Anonymous sources with no corroboration
+- Circular citations (A→B→A)
+- "Experts say" without named experts
+- Cherry-picked quotes out of context
+
+### Evidence Quality Rating
+
+**High (H):**
+- Multiple independent primary sources agree
+- Methodology transparent and replicable
+- Large sample size, rigorous controls
+- Peer-reviewed or independently verified
+- Recent and relevant to current context
+
+**Medium (M):**
+- Single primary source or multiple secondary sources
+- Some methodology disclosed
+- Moderate sample size, some controls
+- Some independent verification
+- Somewhat dated but still applicable
+
+**Low (L):**
+- Tertiary sources only
+- Methodology opaque or questionable
+- Small sample, no controls, anecdotal
+- No independent verification
+- Outdated or context has changed
+
+### Source Credibility Scoring
+
+**Expertise:**
+- High: Domain expert, relevant credentials, published research
+- Medium: General knowledge, some relevant experience
+- Low: No demonstrated expertise, out of domain
+
+**Independence:**
+- High: No financial/personal stake, third-party verification
+- Medium: Some potential bias but disclosed
+- Low: Direct conflict of interest, undisclosed bias
+
+**Track Record:**
+- High: Consistent accuracy, transparent about corrections
+- Medium: Unknown history or mixed record
+- Low: History of errors, retractions, misinformation
+
+**Methodology:**
+- High: Transparent process, data/methods shared, replicable
+- Medium: Some details provided, partially verifiable
+- Low: Black box, unverifiable, cherry-picked data
+
+### Limitations and Gaps
+
+**Common gaps:**
+- Missing primary sources (only secondary summaries available)
+- Conflicting evidence without clear resolution
+- Outdated information (claim may have changed)
+- Incomplete data (partial picture only)
+- Methodology unclear (can't assess quality)
+- Context missing (claim true but misleading framing)
+
+**Document:**
+- What evidence you expected to find but didn't
+- What questions you couldn't answer
+- What assumptions you had to make to proceed
+- What contradictions remain unresolved
+
+### Confidence Level Calibration
+
+**90-100% (Near Certain):**
+- Multiple independent primary sources
+- High credibility sources with strong methodology
+- No significant contradicting evidence
+- Minimal assumptions or gaps
+- Example: "Earth orbits the Sun"
+
+**70-89% (Confident):**
+- Strong secondary sources or single primary source
+- Credible sources, some methodology disclosed
+- Minor contradictions explainable
+- Some assumptions but reasonable
+- Example: "Vendor has >5,000 customers based on analyst report"
+
+**50-69% (Uncertain):**
+- Mixed evidence quality or conflicting sources
+- Moderate credibility, unclear methodology
+- Significant gaps or assumptions
+- Requires more investigation to be confident
+- Example: "Feature will improve retention 10-20%"
+
+**30-49% (Skeptical):**
+- More/stronger evidence against than for
+- Low credibility sources or weak evidence
+- Major gaps, questionable assumptions
+- Claim likely exaggerated or misleading
+- Example: "Supplement cures disease based on testimonials"
+
+**0-29% (Likely False):**
+- Strong evidence contradicting claim
+- Unreliable sources, no credible support
+- Claim contradicts established facts
+- Clear misinformation or fabrication
+- Example: "Vaccine contains tracking microchips"
+
+---
+
+## Common Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Vendor Due Diligence
+
+**Claim**: Vendor claims product capabilities, performance, customer metrics
+**Approach**: Seek independent verification, customer references, trials
+**Red flags**: Only vendor sources, vague metrics, "up to X" ranges, cherry-picked case studies
+
+### Pattern 2: News Fact-Check
+
+**Claim**: Event occurred, statistic cited, quote attributed
+**Approach**: Trace to primary source, check multiple outlets, verify context
+**Red flags**: Single source, anonymous claims, sensational framing, out-of-context quotes
+
+### Pattern 3: Research Validity
+
+**Claim**: Study shows X causes Y, treatment is effective
+**Approach**: Check replication, sample size, methodology, competing explanations
+**Red flags**: Single study, conflicts of interest, p-hacking, correlation claimed as causation
+
+### Pattern 4: Competitive Intelligence
+
+**Claim**: Competitor has capability, market share, strategic direction
+**Approach**: Triangulate public filings, analyst reports, customer feedback
+**Red flags**: Rumor/speculation, outdated info, no primary verification
+
+---
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+- [ ] Claim restated as specific, testable assertion
+- [ ] Evidence gathered for both supporting and contradicting
+- [ ] Each source rated for evidence quality (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
+- [ ] Each source assessed for credibility (Expertise, Independence, Track Record, Methodology)
+- [ ] Strongest evidence for and against identified
+- [ ] Limitations and gaps documented explicitly
+- [ ] Assumptions stated clearly
+- [ ] Confidence level quantified (0-100%)
+- [ ] Recommendation is actionable and evidence-based
+- [ ] Caveats and qualifications noted
+- [ ] No cherry-picking (actively sought contradicting evidence)
+- [ ] Distinction made between "no evidence found" and "evidence against"
+- [ ] Sources properly attributed with links/citations
+- [ ] Avoided common biases (confirmation, authority, recency, availability)
+- [ ] Quality sufficient for decision (if not, flag need for more investigation)