Turn a pile of sources into a defensible claim. Use for "what does the literature actually say?", conflicting studies or benchmarks, "is this result trustworthy?", arguments that need claim-evidence-warrant structure, qualitative data needing coding, or a theory with no catalog of its own contradicting evidence.
Scanned 9/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents --skill evidence-synthesis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Evidence Synthesis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cdeust-evidence-synthesis-zetetic-team-subagents)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: evidence-synthesis
shapes: [evidence-synthesis]
description: >
Turn a pile of sources into a defensible claim. Use for "what does the literature
actually say?", conflicting studies or benchmarks, "is this result trustworthy?",
arguments that need claim-evidence-warrant structure, qualitative data needing
coding, or a theory with no catalog of its own contradicting evidence.
---
# Evidence Synthesis
**Problem shape:** multiple sources (papers, benchmarks, interviews, texts)
must be combined into one graded conclusion — and the current draft cherry-picks,
skips heterogeneity, or has no explicit warrant connecting evidence to claim.
## Relevant geniuses
| Agent | Use when |
|---|---|
| [cochrane](../../agents/genius/cochrane.md) | studies must be systematically found, graded, and pooled; publication bias suspected; effect sizes needed, not vote-counting |
| [toulmin](../../agents/genius/toulmin.md) | an argument needs explicit claim-evidence-warrant structure with qualifiers and rebuttals; standards differ by field |
| [feynman](../../agents/genius/feynman.md) | a result is suspiciously clean; a citation is used without the ability to rederive it; integrity audit before publishing |
| [darwin](../../agents/genius/darwin.md) | evidence accumulates over a long horizon; the theory needs a difficulty book of its own contradictions; hardest case first |
| [laplace](../../agents/genius/laplace.md) | evidence must update a belief quantitatively — priors, likelihoods, calibration |
| [gadamer](../../agents/genius/gadamer.md) | sources must be interpreted, not just counted — pre-understandings audited, the charitable reading found first |
| [strauss](../../agents/genius/strauss.md) | qualitative data (interviews, tickets, reviews) needs open/axial coding until saturation, not anecdote-picking |
| [geertz](../../agents/genius/geertz.md) | the evidence is behavior in context — thick description and emic vs etic separation before conclusions |
## Invocation
1. Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run
`tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>"` and take the top ranked match.
2. Load it: `tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>"`, then read
`agents/genius/<agent>.md` in full.
3. Apply the agent's `<workflow>` step by step and answer in its
`<output-format>`. Every synthesized claim carries its evidence grade and
its strongest known counter-evidence (coding-standards §8: no source, no claim).
4. Typical chain: cochrane grades the corpus → toulmin structures the argument
→ feynman audits the integrity. Run via
`tools/genius-invoker.sh compose cochrane toulmin -- "<problem>"`.
5. If no shape above matches, use a standard team agent instead.
## Refuse when
- The conclusion is fixed in advance and only supporting sources are wanted.
- Primary sources are unavailable and only summaries-of-summaries exist —
say "I don't know" rather than synthesize hearsay.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!