Campaign: Counterfactual reasoning to identify load-bearing factors. Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold? Methods: Pearl SCM Three-Step, Lewis Possible Worlds, Tetlock & Belkin, PNS/PS.
Scanned 6/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill counterfactual-probing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Counterfactual Probing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yogsoth-ai-counterfactual-probing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: counterfactual-probing
description: "Campaign: Counterfactual reasoning to identify load-bearing factors. Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold? Methods: Pearl SCM Three-Step, Lewis Possible Worlds, Tetlock & Belkin, PNS/PS."
type: campaign
produces: CounterfactualMap
artifact-types: [gap, hypothesis, research-question, idea, approach, experiment-design, claim]
---
# Counterfactual Probing Campaign
Core question: **If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold?**
## Methodology Sources
- Pearl (2000) — Structural Causal Models, Three-Step counterfactual procedure
- Lewis (1973) — Possible Worlds semantics for counterfactuals
- Tetlock & Belkin (1996) — Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics
- Fearon (1991) — Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science
- Williamson (2007) — The Philosophy of Philosophy, thought experiment methodology
## Strategy Routing
| Artifact Type | Primary Strategy | Fallback Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| hypothesis, claim | structural-counterfactual | necessity-sufficiency |
| research-question | thought-experiment | closest-worlds |
| idea, approach | factor-removal | closest-worlds |
| experiment-design | necessity-sufficiency | structural-counterfactual |
| gap | closest-worlds | factor-removal |
## Budget Table
| Parameter | S (Quick) | M (Standard) | L (Deep) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factors examined | 5 | 10 | 20 |
| Counterfactual scenarios | 3 | 8 | 15 |
| Necessity tests | 3 | 6 | 12 |
| Flip-point search depth | 2 | 4 | 8 |
## Tactics
- **systematic-factor-ablation** — Remove factors one at a time, observe conclusion stability
- **minimal-change-search** — Find smallest change that flips the conclusion
- **causal-necessity-testing** — Evaluate necessity and sufficiency of each causal claim
## Context Management
Each subagent operates in isolated context. Factor enumeration precedes all counterfactual reasoning. Scenarios are constructed with minimal deviation from actuality. Fragility measurements aggregate across all tested factors.
## Output
Produces `CounterfactualMap` containing: load-bearing factors ranked by necessity, fragility index per factor, flip-points identified, robustness assessment, and recommended sensitivity analyses.
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!