counterargument

Name: counterargument
Author: richard-kim-79

44stars10forks

How to install counterargument?

richard-kim-79/archora-skills/counterargument

$npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill counterargument

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Generates rigorous devil's advocate critiques from methodological, theoretical, and practical perspectives. Use when the user asks to challenge their own work, find weaknesses, stress-test assumptions, anticipate reviewer objections, or argue against their research claims. Run BE

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Counterargument Generation
2
3	Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
4
5	## Perspectives
6
7	\| Perspective \| Icon \| Focus \|
8	\|-------------\|------\|-------\|
9	\| Methodological \| 🔬 \| Study design, measurement validity, statistical approach, reproducibility \|
10	\| Theoretical \| 📚 \| Conceptual framework, alternative explanations, literature gaps \|
11	\| Practical \| ⚙️ \| Feasibility, generalizability, real-world applicability, ethical concerns \|
12
13	## Workflow
14
15	1. Identify the core claims — extract the main hypotheses or arguments
16	2. Generate 4–6 critiques — at least one per perspective, more for weaker claims
17	3. Rate severity — HIGH (fatal flaw), MEDIUM (significant concern), LOW (minor point)
18	4. Provide rebuttal strategy — for each critique, suggest how to respond or strengthen the research
19
20	## Output Format
21
22	```markdown
23	# ⚔️ Counterargument Analysis
24
25	## Summary
26	[2–3 sentences: overall assessment of the research's vulnerability to critique]
27
28	## Counterarguments
29
30	### 📚 Theoretical Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
31
32	Challenged Claim: [Exact claim being challenged]
33
34	Critique: [Specific, evidence-grounded critique. Reference timescales, measurement limits,
35	alternative frameworks, or published contradictory evidence where possible.]
36
37	Rebuttal Strategy: [Concrete suggestion: what experiment, analysis, or argument would
38	address this critique]
39
40	---
41
42	### 🔬 Methodological Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
43	...
44	```
45
46	## Quality criteria
47
48	- Specific: Reference exact claims, timescales, measurements — not vague "this is uncertain"
49	- Grounded: Connect to actual limitations in the content, not generic criticism
50	- Expert-level: Write as a senior reviewer at a top journal would
51	- Constructive: Every critique ends with a path forward (rebuttal strategy)
52
53	## Examples of strong vs weak critiques
54
55	Weak: "The sample size might be too small."
56
57	Strong: "The proposed sample of n=15 animals achieves 80% power only for effect sizes of η²≥0.25. Given the typical effect sizes in STDP studies (η²=0.10–0.15, e.g., Bi & Poo 1998), this is underpowered. A power analysis targeting η²=0.12 would require n=38 per condition."

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

counterargument

44stars10forks

View on GitHub

How to install counterargument?

richard-kim-79/archora-skills/counterargument

$npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill counterargument

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Counterargument Generation
2
3	Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
4
5	## Perspectives
6
7	\| Perspective \| Icon \| Focus \|
8	\|-------------\|------\|-------\|
9	\| Methodological \| 🔬 \| Study design, measurement validity, statistical approach, reproducibility \|
10	\| Theoretical \| 📚 \| Conceptual framework, alternative explanations, literature gaps \|
11	\| Practical \| ⚙️ \| Feasibility, generalizability, real-world applicability, ethical concerns \|
12
13	## Workflow
14
15	1. Identify the core claims — extract the main hypotheses or arguments
16	2. Generate 4–6 critiques — at least one per perspective, more for weaker claims
17	3. Rate severity — HIGH (fatal flaw), MEDIUM (significant concern), LOW (minor point)
18	4. Provide rebuttal strategy — for each critique, suggest how to respond or strengthen the research
19
20	## Output Format
21
22	```markdown
23	# ⚔️ Counterargument Analysis
24
25	## Summary
26	[2–3 sentences: overall assessment of the research's vulnerability to critique]
27
28	## Counterarguments
29
30	### 📚 Theoretical Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
31
32	Challenged Claim: [Exact claim being challenged]
33
34	Critique: [Specific, evidence-grounded critique. Reference timescales, measurement limits,
35	alternative frameworks, or published contradictory evidence where possible.]
36
37	Rebuttal Strategy: [Concrete suggestion: what experiment, analysis, or argument would
38	address this critique]
39
40	---
41
42	### 🔬 Methodological Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
43	...
44	```
45
46	## Quality criteria
47
48	- Specific: Reference exact claims, timescales, measurements — not vague "this is uncertain"
49	- Grounded: Connect to actual limitations in the content, not generic criticism
50	- Expert-level: Write as a senior reviewer at a top journal would
51	- Constructive: Every critique ends with a path forward (rebuttal strategy)
52
53	## Examples of strong vs weak critiques
54
55	Weak: "The sample size might be too small."
56
57	Strong: "The proposed sample of n=15 animals achieves 80% power only for effect sizes of η²≥0.25. Given the typical effect sizes in STDP studies (η²=0.10–0.15, e.g., Bi & Poo 1998), this is underpowered. A power analysis targeting η²=0.12 would require n=38 per condition."

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type