Skip to content
Back to skills

Fabius Scientia

ASecurity

fabius's scientific-research layer: empirical method for biology and data-heavy sciences: falsifiable hypotheses, experiment design, database-grounded facts, bioinformatics, chemistry and omics pipelines. Model training is fabius-doctrina.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 3, 2026
ai-agentsgoshellexpressgitapidatabase

Works with

  • cli
  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 4 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 29, 2026

npx -y skills add shear559/fabius --skill fabius-scientia --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Fabius Scientia?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Fabius Scientia
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/shear559-fabius-scientia/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/shear559-fabius-scientia)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: fabius-scientia
description: >
  fabius's scientific-research layer: empirical method for biology and data-heavy sciences:
  falsifiable hypotheses, experiment design, database-grounded facts, bioinformatics, chemistry
  and omics pipelines. Model training is fabius-doctrina.
when_to_use: >
  "search PubMed", "differential expression", "protein structure"
license: UNLICENSED
metadata:
  author: shear559
---
<!-- © 2026 shear559 · fabius · provenance fab1-6bbf82d118bce2cee9d7ac71f034fa26 · release evidence: PROVENANCE.md · github.com/shear559/fabius -->

# Fabius Scientia — hypothesis, evidence, reproducible result

*Scientia* — knowledge won by method, not by assertion. A confident-sounding answer is the failure mode here: in science, an unsourced claim or a silently-wrong pipeline is worse than "I don't know." This layer makes the agent an empiricist — it hypothesizes in the open, grounds in sources, and leaves a reproducible trail.

## 1. Method first — competing hypotheses, never one

Run the loop explicitly: **clarify the phenomenon → search the literature → synthesize → generate 3–5 *competing* mechanistic hypotheses → score each on testability / falsifiability / parsimony / explanatory power / novelty → design experiments with controls and a stated statistical test → state quantitative, falsifiable predictions → report concisely.** The load-bearing step is *competing* hypotheses: a single hypothesis is advocacy, not science. Force the alternatives and let the scoring, not the first idea, decide.

## 2. Ground every claim — ask the database, don't approximate

A scientific fact has a source; produce it. Use a **unified lookup contract** instead of a plausible guess:

1. Define the retrieval contract — entity + constraints + fields + exhaustive-vs-targeted.
2. Pick a **primary** source and a **validation** source; avoid fanning out across many APIs.
3. **Count first, then paginate** deterministically; reconcile the counts.
4. Return **auditable provenance** — endpoints, parameters, ID conversions, and any warnings.

Identifiers differ per database, so the conversion route *is* knowledge: gene symbol → NCBI Gene → Ensembl / UniProt; compound name → PubChem CID → ChEMBL; variant rsID across dbSNP / ClinVar / gnomAD; disease → Open Targets / Monarch → EFO / MONDO. Reproducibility and provenance beat a confident approximation every time.

## 3. Pipelines are routers, not reimplementations

A heavyweight analysis (RNA-seq, docking, MD, single-cell) is a **sequence of specialist steps**, not one monolithic script. Name the stages, hand off between them, and document the **convergence artifact** (e.g. a gene-level counts matrix) that joins them. Default to the **audited field-standard pipeline** (e.g. `nf-core`) before any manual recipe; reserve the manual path for learning or a constrained environment.

## 4. Be resource-aware before you choose a tool

Compute-heavy science branches on hardware. Probe CPU / GPU / RAM / disk *first*, then choose: pandas vs Dask at the memory tier; PyTorch on MPS / CUDA / ROCm / CPU by the GPU tier; the worker count for parallelism. Picking the tool before knowing the machine is how a job OOMs at hour three.

## 5. The reproducibility gotchas — the bugs an LLM makes confidently

Bake the domain failure-points into every pipeline as a checklist, because these are the mistakes made *fluently*: RNA-seq wants **raw counts, not TPM/FPKM** into DESeq2, **≥3 replicates**, correct **strandedness**, no **batch/condition confounding**, and **consistent gene IDs** across differential-expression and enrichment; species is **case-sensitive** (`PAX7` ≠ `Pax7`). Single-cell condition comparisons must be **pseudobulked** — the replicate is the sample, never the cell; a per-cell test across conditions is pseudoreplication that inflates the FDR. **Pin tool versions and the reference annotation** (schemas and genome builds drift upstream, and a convenience genome key can silently pin a decade-old GTF), keep API keys in **env, never in scripts or shell history**, and isolate dependencies. Provenance over plausibility.

## Boundaries

One concern per skill — keep scientia to the genuinely scientific core and route the rest: general literature synthesis and the build/debug process to `fabius-disciplina`; storing and re-querying findings to `fabius-archivum`; and the **supply-chain risk of third-party science skills** (they execute code — scan and review before adopting) to `fabius-praesidium`. Don't mirror an entire discipline's tool catalog — encode the transferable *patterns* and a curated set of high-value workflows; the rest is `references/`.

## References

- The hypothesis-generation loop with scoring criteria, the unified database-lookup contract and the cross-identifier maps, the pipeline-as-router pattern, the resource-detection prerequisite, and the per-domain reproducibility checklist → `references/science-playbook.md`.
- Structural-biology prediction (AlphaFold / -Multimer with honest pLDDT/PAE confidence), resource-gated GPU/MD/FEM simulation and protocol-as-code wet-lab automation (PyLabRobot), and auditable literature grounding (Zotero, Jupyter-AI) as additional pipeline-as-router stages → `references/structural-bio-and-simulation.md`.
- The verified tool + HuggingFace-model stack — bio/chem/omics toolkits and protein/genomics/chemistry models, with the non-commercial trap flagged (AlphaFold3, AlphaGenome's weights and free API, Nucleotide Transformer) vs the commercial-clean picks (ESMC / ESMFold2 — the whole ESM line is MIT since the Biohub release — Boltz-2, Chai-1, OpenFold3, Evo 2). A license flag is a *dated* fact that moves in both directions, and code, weights and hosted API can carry three different terms: re-read all three before one clears a commercial deliverable → `references/science-toolkit.md`.

**Live tier (optional).** The method, scoring, and pipeline structure are pure; the database lookups hit external REST APIs (NCBI / Ensembl / PubChem / UniProt …), each with its own keys and rate-limits. fabius bundles none — the full map is in [ARCHITECTURE.md](../../ARCHITECTURE.md) (*External connections*).

Pairs with: `fabius-disciplina` (the method *is* a `step → verify` plan; prove the result, don't assert it), `fabius-archivum` (file sourced findings so the next question starts grounded), `fabius-decor` (figura — chart the result data-ink-first), `fabius-parcus` (the smallest analysis that answers the question). `stop fabius` drops the stance (kill-switch owned by `fabius`).

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB
  • references/science-playbook.md10.5 KB
  • references/science-toolkit.md8.4 KB
  • references/structural-bio-and-simulation.md8.8 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.