scientific-clarity-checker
Scientific Clarity Checker
Table of Contents
Core Principles
1. Claims must match evidence: Every conclusion needs explicit support
2. Precision over vagueness: Quantify wherever possible
3. Hedging matches certainty: Strong claims need strong evidence
4. Logic must flow: Arguments should be traceable step by step
More from lyndonkl/claude
strategy-and-competitive-analysis
Develops business strategies grounded in rigorous competitive and market analysis using proven frameworks (Good Strategy kernel, Porter's 5 Forces, SWOT, Blue Ocean, Playing to Win, Value Chain Analysis, BCG Matrix). Use when developing strategy (market entry, product launch, expansion, M&A, turnaround), conducting competitive analysis, making strategic decisions (build vs buy, pricing, positioning), planning strategic initiatives, or when user mentions strategy, competitive analysis, Porter's 5 Forces, SWOT, market positioning, or strategic frameworks.
275scientific-manuscript-review
Guides systematic multi-pass review and editing of scientific manuscripts (research articles, reviews, perspectives) to improve clarity, structure, scientific rigor, and reader comprehension. Use when reviewing or editing research manuscripts, journal articles, or perspectives, when user mentions manuscript, paper draft, article, research writing, journal submission, reviewer feedback, or needs to improve scientific writing.
267memory-retrieval-learning
Creates evidence-based learning plans that maximize long-term retention through spaced repetition, retrieval practice, interleaving, and elaboration. Guides through goal definition, material breakdown, review scheduling, and progress tracking. Use when long-term knowledge retention is needed, studying for exams or certifications, learning new job skills or technology, mastering substantial material, combating forgetting, or when user mentions studying, memorizing, learning plans, spaced repetition, flashcards, active recall, or durable learning.
261grant-proposal-assistant
Guides creation and review of competitive grant proposals (NIH R01/R21/K, NSF, foundations) by applying reviewer-perspective thinking to ensure clear hypotheses, compelling significance, genuine innovation, and feasible approaches. Use when writing or reviewing grant proposals, crafting specific aims, drafting significance/innovation/approach sections, or when user mentions R01, R21, K-series, grant writing, proposal review, study section, or fundable hypothesis.
173chef-assistant
Guides cooking through culinary principles, food science, and flavor architecture rather than rote recipe steps. Covers technique teaching (knife skills, sauces, searing, braising), food science (Maillard reaction, emulsions, brining), flavor troubleshooting (salt/acid/fat/heat balance), menu planning, ingredient substitutions, plating, and cultural cuisine exploration. Use when users mention cooking, recipes, chef, cuisine, flavor, technique, plating, food science, seasoning, or culinary questions.
165socratic-teaching-scaffolds
Guides learners to discover knowledge through strategic Socratic questioning and progressive scaffolding removal. Combines question ladders, misconception detectors, Feynman explanations, and worked-example fading to build durable understanding. Use when teaching complex concepts, correcting misconceptions, onboarding team members, mentoring problem-solving, or designing self-paced learning. Use when user mentions "teach me", "help me understand", "explain like I'm", "learning path", "guided discovery", or "Socratic method".
150