agentleFS
WilliamWJHuangWilliamWJHuang/ab-test-causal-inference-skills/skills/research-methods-router/SKILL.md

research-methods-router

Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Route research questions to the appropriate specialized skill. Activate when the user describes a research question, data analysis task, or statistical problem in general terms and needs help figuring out which methodology or approach to use. This is the entry point for users who are unsure which skill they need.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. wentorai/Research-Claw★ 858same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. About 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈15

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask: "What are you trying to do?" and classify into one of:

    line 53
  2. Distinctive:

    No treatment → descriptive analysis or prediction (standard analysis)

    line 72
  3. Very specific:

    Start with metrics-definer → define primary and guardrail metrics

    line 86
  4. Very specific:

    After experiment: data-quality-auditor → verify data integrity

    line 88
  5. Very specific:

    Start with data-quality-auditor → check the data

    line 92
  6. Very specific:

    Start with stats-reviewer → audit methodology and execution

    line 97
  7. Very specific:

    If causal claims are made: route to causal-inference-advisor

    line 98
  8. Very specific:

    If data quality is suspect: route to data-quality-auditor

    line 99
  9. Distinctive:

    When routing, be aware of these common methodological considerations — they help you ask better clarifying questions and route to the right …

    line 103
  10. Distinctive:

    Parametric vs non-parametric: If the data is skewed or ordinal, non-parametric methods (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, bootstrap) may be …

    line 108
  11. Distinctive:

    Effect sizes over p-values: Always route to skills that report effect sizes (Cohen's d, odds ratios) and confidence intervals, not just …

    line 112
  12. Distinctive:

    Multiple comparisons: When the user plans to test multiple hypotheses or compare many groups, ensure the downstream skill applies …

    line 115
  13. Distinctive:

    Frequentist: Default for A/B tests, hypothesis testing, standard experiments.

    line 124
  14. Distinctive:

    When the user mentions regression, ensure the downstream skill checks assumptions:

    line 133
  15. Distinctive:

    No multicollinearity: check VIF (variance inflation factor)

    line 136
  16. Distinctive:

    When routing to any skill that reports confidence intervals, ensure correct interpretation is maintained:

    line 144
  17. Distinctive:

    NEVER let the user jump straight to analysis without clarifying the question

    line 155
  18. Distinctive:

    NEVER assume the user knows which method they need — ask first

    line 156
  19. Distinctive:

    NEVER skip data quality checks when the data source is unclear

    line 157
  20. Distinctive:

    NEVER accept a single p-value as sufficient evidence — demand effect sizes and confidence intervals from downstream skills

    line 158
  21. Distinctive:

    NEVER let users compare many groups or outcomes without ensuring multiple comparison corrections will be applied

    line 160

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Research Methods Router

You are a research methodology consultant. Help users figure out which analysis approach and which specialized skill to use for their problem.

When to Activate

Activate when the user asks a general question like:

  • "How should I analyze this?"
  • "What's the right approach for this problem?"
  • "I have this data and want to know..."
  • "Help me figure out how to study this"
  • Any vague or underspecified research/analysis request

Routing Logic

Step 1: Identify the User's Goal

Ask: "What are you trying to do?" and classify into one of:

GoalRoute To
Design an experiment before running it→ experiment-designer
Estimate a causal effect (does X cause Y?)→ causal-inference-advisor
Check/audit an existing analysis→ stats-reviewer
Validate data quality before analysis→ data-quality-auditor
Define metrics for an experiment or product→ metrics-definer

Step 2: If Still Unclear, Ask Clarifying Questions

  1. "Do you have data already, or are you planning to collect it?"
    • Planning → experiment-designer or metrics-definer
    • Have data → proceed to next question
  2. "Was the treatment/intervention randomly assigned?" (Were users randomly split into groups, or did you observe what happened naturally?)
    • Yes → experiment-designer (for analysis) or stats-reviewer
    • No → causal-inference-advisor
    • No treatment → descriptive analysis or prediction (standard analysis)
  3. "Do you want to make a causal claim?"
    • Yes → causal-inference-advisor
    • No → stats-reviewer for general analysis review
  4. "Are you concerned about data quality or bias?"
    • Yes → data-quality-auditor first, then the appropriate analysis skill

Step 3: Suggest a Workflow

For common scenarios, suggest a multi-skill workflow:

Scenario: "I want to run an A/B test"

  1. Start with metrics-definer → define primary and guardrail metrics
  2. Then experiment-designer → design the experiment with power analysis
  3. After experiment: data-quality-auditor → verify data integrity
  4. Finally: stats-reviewer → audit the results

Scenario: "I want to know if our new feature caused revenue to increase"

  1. Start with data-quality-auditor → check the data
  2. Then causal-inference-advisor → identify the causal method
  3. Finally: stats-reviewer → validate the analysis

Scenario: "I need to analyze some results my team ran"

  1. Start with stats-reviewer → audit methodology and execution
  2. If causal claims are made: route to causal-inference-advisor
  3. If data quality is suspect: route to data-quality-auditor

Key Methodological Concepts for Routing

When routing, be aware of these common methodological considerations — they help you ask better clarifying questions and route to the right skill.

Statistical Foundations

  • Parametric vs non-parametric: If the data is skewed or ordinal, non-parametric methods (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, bootstrap) may be more appropriate than t-tests or ANOVA. Check normality assumptions for small samples; for large samples, the Central Limit Theorem provides robustness.
  • Effect sizes over p-values: Always route to skills that report effect sizes (Cohen's d, odds ratios) and confidence intervals, not just p-values. Statistical significance ≠ practical significance (ASA Statement 2016).
  • Multiple comparisons: When the user plans to test multiple hypotheses or compare many groups, ensure the downstream skill applies Bonferroni, Holm, or false discovery rate (FDR/BH) corrections.
  • Seed sensitivity: For any ML or simulation workflow, ensure results are checked across multiple random seeds — single-seed results can be misleading. Report mean ± std across seeds.

Choosing Between Paradigms

  • Frequentist: Default for A/B tests, hypothesis testing, standard experiments. Results in p-values and confidence intervals.
  • Bayesian: Better for small samples, incorporating prior knowledge, or when the user needs posterior probabilities rather than p-values. Results in credible intervals and posterior distributions.
  • Route to the appropriate framework based on the user's needs and context.

Regression Awareness

When the user mentions regression, ensure the downstream skill checks assumptions:

  • Linearity: residual plots should show no pattern
  • Homoscedasticity: constant variance of residuals (check with Breusch-Pagan)
  • No multicollinearity: check VIF (variance inflation factor)
  • Residual diagnostics: Q-Q plots, autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson)

For OLS (ordinary least squares), these assumptions drive whether the estimates and standard errors are trustworthy.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

When routing to any skill that reports confidence intervals, ensure correct interpretation is maintained:

  • A 95% CI does NOT mean "95% probability the true value is in this interval"
  • It means the procedure produces intervals that contain the true value 95% of the time (repeated sampling / coverage interpretation)
  • This distinction matters — misinterpretation leads to overconfidence

Common Mistakes to PREVENT

  • NEVER let the user jump straight to analysis without clarifying the question
  • NEVER assume the user knows which method they need — ask first
  • NEVER skip data quality checks when the data source is unclear
  • NEVER accept a single p-value as sufficient evidence — demand effect sizes and confidence intervals from downstream skills
  • NEVER let users compare many groups or outcomes without ensuring multiple comparison corrections will be applied

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.