@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.3 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/scientific-brainstorming/references/responsible_ai.md

@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
+# Responsible AI in Research Ideation
+
+AI can supply prompts, reframings, counterarguments, or organizational help.
+It is not an expert panel, evidence source, author, ethics reviewer, or
+scientific decision maker. Capabilities and policies change; follow current
+institutional, funder, publisher, legal, and community requirements.
+
+## Default sequence
+
+1. **Classify information.** Decide whether the prompt would include personal,
+   patient, confidential, unpublished, proprietary, export-controlled,
+   security-sensitive, or otherwise restricted information.
+2. **Generate human ideas first.** Freeze an independent human-only round
+   before showing AI suggestions.
+3. **Define the AI role.** Examples: produce orthogonal questions, challenge an
+   assumption, list search terms, or reformat an already approved record.
+4. **Use only an approved tool and data class.** Do not assume a paid or
+   “private” interface satisfies institutional controls.
+5. **Capture provenance.** Record tool/model or service, date, purpose, material
+   prompt constraints, output IDs used, and human editor. Avoid storing
+   restricted prompt text in the session register.
+6. **Verify externally.** Check factual claims and every citation against
+   authoritative sources. Search for contradictory and null evidence.
+7. **Run a second independent human round.** Ask for ideas outside the AI's
+   frames and for harms or stakeholders the output omitted.
+8. **Disclose as required.** The accountable humans retain authorship,
+   responsibility, and final judgment.
+
+AI use is optional. The bundled CLIs make no network or LLM calls.
+
+## Suitable bounded roles
+
+- Generate alternative phrasings of a non-sensitive focal question.
+- Suggest dimensions for a morphological matrix, followed by human review.
+- Produce counterexamples or alternative mechanisms for registered ideas.
+- Identify ambiguous terms or missing assumptions.
+- Generate candidate search vocabulary, not references presented as real.
+- Convert an approved, non-sensitive record between formats.
+- Act as one disclosed adversarial prompt after human-first ideation.
+
+Avoid using AI to:
+
+- decide which scientific claim is true;
+- certify novelty, safety, ethics, legality, or regulatory compliance;
+- invent or complete missing data;
+- rank people, patients, communities, or protected groups;
+- replace stakeholder participation or domain expertise;
+- generate actionable harmful or dual-use procedures;
+- review confidential manuscripts, grants, or peer-review material in systems
+  where confidentiality is not assured.
+
+## Hallucination and source verification
+
+Generative systems can produce plausible but false claims, references,
+methods, statistics, and quotations. A 2023 study found fabricated and
+substantively erroneous bibliographic citations in outputs from the tested
+GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 versions; model-specific rates are not timeless estimates.
+
+For every AI-suggested source:
+
+1. locate the work in a trusted index or publisher site;
+2. match title, authors, venue, year, DOI, and version;
+3. read the relevant primary text;
+4. confirm the cited result, population, design, and limitations;
+5. record the stable source identifier;
+6. delete unsupported claims rather than laundering them as “AI suggested.”
+
+Never cite the model as evidence for a scientific claim.
+
+## Anchoring and homogenization
+
+AI output can anchor users on examples and compress a group's idea diversity.
+In a preregistered short-story experiment, access to GPT-4 ideas improved
+average evaluated creativity for some writers while making outputs more
+similar in aggregate. The task was short creative writing, not scientific
+ideation, so treat homogenization as a credible risk to test—not a universal
+effect size.
+
+Controls:
+
+- human-only generation before any AI output;
+- different participants receive no AI, or distinct prompt frames, when the
+  comparison is methodologically justified;
+- ask for mechanisms that contradict the AI's dominant frame;
+- compare assumptions, predictions, and causal structure—not only wording;
+- preserve pre-AI ideas and record which ideas changed after exposure;
+- include non-AI domain, methods, stakeholder, ethics, and safety perspectives;
+- do not infer independent support from many outputs of the same model.
+
+Multiple AI samples are correlated products of a system, not independent
+experts or replications.
+
+## Automation bias and false authority
+
+Fluent language, technical detail, and confident formatting are not evidence.
+To reduce deference:
+
+- hide model branding during idea review when feasible;
+- evaluate ideas against the same predeclared criteria;
+- require a human rationale and uncertainty statement;
+- assign a non-originating human challenger;
+- verify with primary evidence and domain experts;
+- retain a “no decision / insufficient evidence” outcome;
+- prohibit automatic advancement based only on an AI or matrix score.
+
+Do not ask an AI system to assign a probability it cannot calibrate and then
+treat the number as measured uncertainty.
+
+## Confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property
+
+Do not submit the following to an external AI service unless an authorized
+policy and agreement explicitly permit that data class:
+
+- patient, participant, employee, student, or other personal information;
+- unpublished manuscripts, peer reviews, grants, invention disclosures, or
+  partner materials;
+- proprietary protocols, source code, compounds, sequences, or business data;
+- controlled unclassified, export-controlled, classified, or
+  security-sensitive information;
+- credentials, tokens, private links, or internal system details;
+- community-governed or Indigenous data outside agreed governance.
+
+Data minimization and abstraction are still required with an approved tool.
+Check retention, training use, access, location, deletion, audit, and incident
+terms. If the work cannot be safely abstracted, use an approved local/closed
+process or do not use AI.
+
+## Bias, representation, and participation
+
+AI output may reproduce gaps and stereotypes in training data and overrepresent
+well-indexed, English-language, high-resource perspectives. It cannot consent
+on behalf of affected communities.
+
+- Ask which populations, languages, geographies, disciplines, and negative
+  findings are missing.
+- Involve relevant people directly and compensate them where applicable.
+- Distinguish biological variables from social identities and avoid
+  essentialist mechanisms.
+- Examine whether a proposed measurement or intervention transfers across
+  settings.
+- Treat accessibility, equity, and distribution of benefits and burdens as
+  review criteria and possible gates.
+
+## Research integrity and disclosure
+
+Humans remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, originality, permissions,
+and the research record. AI systems should not be listed as authors. Record and
+disclose AI use at the level required by the institution, funder, venue, and
+applicable guidance.
+
+A useful internal disclosure includes:
+
+```text
+Tool/service and model or version (if exposed):
+Date used:
+Purpose:
+Information classification and approved environment:
+Human-first idea set frozen before use: yes/no
+Outputs retained or used:
+Verification performed:
+Material changes made by humans:
+Known limitations:
+```
+
+Disclosure does not cure inappropriate data sharing, plagiarism, fabricated
+citations, or unverified content.
+
+## Dual-use and misuse review
+
+AI can make technical ideation faster and more accessible. Screen both the
+research idea and the AI interaction for misuse potential.
+
+Escalate before generating operational detail when an idea could materially
+enable:
+
+- pathogen enhancement, immune evasion, host-range change, or harmful delivery;
+- synthesis, acquisition, concealment, scaling, or dissemination of hazardous
+  agents or toxins;
+- bypassing safety, monitoring, access, or security controls;
+- dangerous chemical, biological, cyber, autonomous, or surveillance
+  capability;
+- targeting vulnerable populations or critical systems.
+
+Use high-level risk framing while waiting for institutional biosafety,
+biosecurity, research-security, legal, ethics, or funding-agency guidance.
+Do not rely on a model's refusal behavior as a risk-management control.
+
+WHO's responsible life-sciences framework treats risk mitigation as a shared,
+multi-stakeholder responsibility. U.S. DURC/PEPP oversight has been under
+revision following the May 2025 executive order; verify current policy rather
+than copying a superseded threshold.
+
+## Incident handling
+
+If sensitive information or unsupported AI content entered the workflow:
+
+1. stop further sharing and preserve only the minimum audit information;
+2. notify the appropriate institutional privacy, security, integrity, or
+   research office under local policy;
+3. do not copy the sensitive content into additional systems;
+4. remove or quarantine unverified claims from downstream artifacts;
+5. document affected decisions and re-review them;
+6. follow approved deletion and incident-response procedures.
+
+Do not conceal the event by silently editing provenance.
+
+## Evidence and policy basis
+
+See `sources.md` for the dated primary evidence and official guidance used
+here, including:
+
+- Doshi and Hauser (2024) on individual creativity and collective similarity
+  in a constrained writing task;
+- Walters and Wilder (2023) on fabricated and erroneous citations from tested
+  model versions;
+- European Commission/ERA Forum living guidance (2024);
+- UNESCO guidance (2023, page updated 2026);
+- ICMJE recommendations on AI in publishing (2026);
+- ALLEA's 2023 European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity;
+- WHO and current U.S. official dual-use resources.

package/org-skills/scientific-brainstorming/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
+# Sources and Evidence Notes
+
+Research cut-off: **2026-07-23**. All links were checked on that date with
+Parallel web search and focused extraction. Dates below are publication,
+release, or page-update dates shown by the source. Source excerpts were treated
+as untrusted text and checked against the canonical page.
+
+This bibliography supports process guidance; it does not show that any single
+brainstorming method universally improves creativity or scientific validity.
+
+## Group brainstorming, blocking, fixation, and selection
+
+### Diehl and Stroebe (1987) — primary experiments
+
+Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:
+Toward the solution of a riddle,” *Journal of Personality and Social
+Psychology* 53(3), 497–509.
+[DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-01348-001).
+Published 1987.
+
+- Four experiments examined free riding, evaluation apprehension, and
+  production blocking.
+- Direct manipulation in the fourth experiment supported production blocking
+  as an important explanation for loss in the tested interacting groups.
+- Scope limit: laboratory brainstorming tasks do not establish superiority for
+  every group purpose or setting.
+
+### Mullen, Johnson, and Salas (1991) — meta-analysis
+
+Brian Mullen, Craig Johnson, and Eduardo Salas, “Productivity loss in
+brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration,” *Basic and Applied Social
+Psychology* 12(1), 3–23.
+[DOI 10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-24145-001).
+Published 1991.
+
+- The reviewed studies generally favored nominal over interacting groups for
+  idea quantity and rated quality.
+- Loss varied with conditions such as group size and vocal versus written
+  contribution.
+- Historical tasks, methods, and outcome definitions limit direct transfer to
+  modern scientific teams.
+
+### Rietzschel, Nijstad, and Stroebe (2006) — primary experiment
+
+Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe, “Productivity is
+not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on
+idea generation and selection,” *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*
+42(2), 244–251.
+[DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103105000600).
+Published March 2006.
+
+- In 42 analyzed three-person student groups, nominal groups generated more
+  ideas; their ideas were more original and less feasible.
+- Selected-idea quality did not differ among conditions, and selection was not
+  significantly better than chance.
+- Strictly separating generation and selection did not establish a universal
+  selection advantage in this experiment.
+
+### Rietzschel, Nijstad, and Stroebe (2010) — primary experiments
+
+Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe, “The selection of
+creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity
+and impact,” *British Journal of Psychology* 101(1), 47–68.
+[DOI 10.1348/000712609X414204](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19267959/).
+Published February 2010.
+
+- Explicit selection criteria improved selection on the named originality
+  dimension in the reported studies, with trade-offs in satisfaction or rated
+  effectiveness.
+- This supports explicit criteria, not a claim that a single composite score
+  identifies the scientifically best idea.
+
+### Smith, Ward, and Schumacher (1993) — primary experiments
+
+Steven M. Smith, Thomas B. Ward, and Jay S. Schumacher, “Constraining effects
+of examples in a creative generation task,” *Memory & Cognition* 21, 837–845.
+[DOI 10.3758/BF03202751](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8289661/).
+Published November 1993.
+
+- Across three creative-generation experiments, participants exposed to
+  examples were more likely to reproduce example features.
+- The specific drawing/design tasks support an anchoring or fixation risk; they
+  do not quantify the effect for scientific ideation.
+
+### Esser (1998) — review
+
+James K. Esser, “Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink
+Research,” *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes* 73(2–3),
+116–141.
+[DOI 10.1006/obhd.1998.2758](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9705799/).
+Published February 1998.
+
+- Reviews the evidence and evolution of Janis's groupthink model.
+- The broader literature includes substantial debate over the model and its
+  antecedents; this skill therefore uses “groupthink” as a risk prompt, not a
+  definitive diagnosis.
+
+## Nominal groups, Delphi, and structured elicitation
+
+### Van de Ven and Delbecq (1972) — early NGT paper
+
+Andrew H. Van de Ven and André L. Delbecq, “The nominal group as a research
+instrument for exploratory health studies,” *American Journal of Public
+Health* 62(3), 337–342.
+[DOI 10.2105/AJPH.62.3.337](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1530096/).
+Published March 1972.
+
+- Primary early account of the nominal-group approach in exploratory health
+  research.
+- Historical evidence should be combined with current, context-specific
+  reporting guidance.
+
+### Harb et al. (2021) — NGT scoping review
+
+Sami I. Harb et al., “Methodological options of the nominal group technique for
+survey item elicitation in health research: A scoping review,” *Journal of
+Clinical Epidemiology* 139, 140–148.
+[DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.008](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435621002535).
+Published November 2021.
+
+- Included 57 studies and identified 30 process decision points across five
+  broad stages.
+- Supports documenting actual choices and their rationale rather than treating
+  NGT as one invariant protocol.
+- Scope is health-survey item elicitation, not every use of NGT.
+
+### Jünger et al. (2017) — CREDES systematic review and guidance
+
+Saskia Jünger et al., “Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies
+(CREDES) in palliative care,” *Palliative Medicine* 31(8), 684–706.
+[DOI 10.1177/0269216317690685](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28190381/).
+E-published 13 February 2017.
+
+- A methodological systematic review of 30 palliative-care Delphi studies
+  found substantial variation in conduct, terminology, and reporting.
+- CREDES is reporting and conduct guidance developed in a palliative-care
+  context, not proof that Delphi consensus is correct.
+
+### RAND (2023) — official Delphi methods guidance
+
+Dmitry Khodyakov, Sean Grant, Jack Kroger, and Melissa Bauman,
+[*RAND Methodological Guidance for Conducting and Critically Appraising Delphi
+Panels*](https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA3082-1.html).
+RAND Corporation, 29 December 2023.
+[DOI 10.7249/TLA3082-1](https://doi.org/10.7249/TLA3082-1).
+
+- Defines Delphi as iterative, anonymous, structured group communication under
+  uncertainty and provides a design/appraisal tool.
+- RAND explicitly notes a lack of consistent methodological guidance across
+  the many Delphi variants.
+
+### EFSA (2014) — official expert-knowledge elicitation guidance
+
+European Food Safety Authority, “Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in
+Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment,” *EFSA Journal* 12(6):3734.
+[DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734](https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734).
+Adopted 22 May and published 19 June 2014.
+
+- Covers problem definition, preparation, expert/method selection, elicitation,
+  uncertainty, aggregation, and documentation.
+- Developed for EFSA food/feed risk assessment; apply domain-specific guidance
+  elsewhere.
+
+### Cooke, Mendel, and Thijs (1988) — structured judgment method
+
+Roger Cooke, Max Mendel, and Wim Thijs, “Calibration and information in expert
+resolution; a classical approach,” *Automatica* 24(1), 87–94.
+[DOI 10.1016/0005-1098(88)90011-8](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0005109888900118).
+Published 1988.
+
+- Presents calibration and information concepts for combining expert
+  judgments and an experiment with descriptive value.
+- Using a “calibration” label without the method's elicitation, seed questions,
+  and validation requirements would be misleading.
+
+## Rigor, reproducibility, and sex as a biological variable
+
+### NIH rigor and reproducibility guidance
+
+NIH Office of Extramural Research,
+[*Guidance: Rigor and Reproducibility in Grant Applications*](https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/reproducibility/guidance).
+Page dated 16 October 2024.
+
+- Identifies rigor of prior research, rigorous experimental design, relevant
+  biological variables, and authentication of key resources.
+- This is grant guidance. It does not validate an idea or substitute for a
+  protocol, statistical review, or field-specific reporting standard.
+
+### NIH SABV policy and current ORWH guidance
+
+NIH Office of Research on Women's Health,
+[*Sex as a Biological Variable*](https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-as-biological-variable).
+Page last updated 17 October 2025.
+
+- NIH expects sex to be considered in design, analysis, and reporting for
+  vertebrate animal and human studies and requests strong justification for a
+  single-sex scope.
+- The page links the governing
+  [NOT-OD-15-102](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-102.html),
+  released 9 June 2015 and effective for relevant applications from 2016.
+- Scope is NIH policy; other funders and jurisdictions may differ.
+
+## Preregistration and open science
+
+### Nosek et al. (2018) — preregistration perspective
+
+Brian A. Nosek et al., “The preregistration revolution,” *Proceedings of the
+National Academy of Sciences* 115(11), 2600–2606.
+[DOI 10.1073/pnas.1708274114](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29531091/).
+Published 13 March 2018.
+
+- Frames preregistration as a way to distinguish prediction from postdiction
+  by specifying questions and analyses before observing outcomes.
+- It is a methodological perspective, not evidence that registration alone
+  guarantees rigor or reproducibility.
+
+### Nosek et al. (2015) — TOP Guidelines
+
+Brian A. Nosek et al., “Promoting an open research culture,” *Science*
+348(6242), 1422–1425.
+[DOI 10.1126/science.aab2374](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab2374).
+Published 26 June 2015.
+
+- Proposes modular journal-policy standards for transparency and openness.
+- A policy framework does not itself establish that a specific study is valid
+  or ethically shareable.
+
+### COS/OSF — current operational guidance
+
+Center for Open Science,
+[*Preregistration*](https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg) and
+[*Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison*](https://www.cos.io/blog/preregistration-plan-not-prison).
+Current pages accessed 23 July 2026.
+
+- Explicitly values both exploratory and confirmatory research, recommends
+  transparent labeling, and explains how to report deviations.
+
+Center for Open Science,
+[*Registered Reports*](https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports).
+Current page accessed 23 July 2026.
+
+- Describes Stage 1 protocol review and in-principle acceptance before results,
+  with exploratory analyses reported separately.
+- COS states that Registered Reports are not a panacea for every field or
+  design.
+
+## Responsible AI and research integrity
+
+### Doshi and Hauser (2024) — primary randomized experiment
+
+Anil R. Doshi and Oliver P. Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual
+creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” *Science
+Advances* 10(28):eadn5290.
+[DOI 10.1126/sciadv.adn5290](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290).
+Published 12 July 2024.
+
+- Preregistered online experiment: 293 analyzed UK participants wrote
+  eight-sentence stories with no, one, or up to five GPT-4 ideas.
+- AI access improved average evaluated novelty/usefulness, especially for
+  lower-scoring writers, while outputs became more similar in aggregate.
+- Constrained short-story writing is not scientific ideation; the study
+  supports a risk hypothesis, not a universal creativity claim.
+
+### Walters and Wilder (2023) — primary citation audit
+
+William H. Walters and Esther Isabelle Wilder, “Fabrication and errors in the
+bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT,” *Scientific Reports* 13.
+[DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41032-5).
+Published 7 September 2023.
+
+- Audited 84 texts produced in April 2023 by tested GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 versions
+  and documented fabricated and substantive citation errors.
+- Results are model-, prompt-, task-, and date-specific; they justify direct
+  source verification rather than a timeless error rate.
+
+### European Commission / ERA Forum (2024) — official living guidance
+
+European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
+[*Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in
+research*](https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/guidelines-responsible-use-generative-ai-research-developed-european-research-area-forum-2024-03-20_en).
+Published 20 March 2024.
+
+- Emphasizes transparency, responsibility, privacy, confidentiality,
+  intellectual property, bias awareness, and avoiding AI in sensitive
+  evaluation activities when confidentiality is not assured.
+- The Commission describes the guidance as living and subject to updates.
+
+### UNESCO (2023; updated 2026) — official guidance
+
+Fengchun Miao and Wayne Holmes,
+[*Guidance for generative AI in education and research*](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research).
+Published 7 September 2023; page last updated 16 January 2026.
+
+- Uses a human-centered framing and addresses privacy, ethical validation,
+  inclusion, equity, and institutional capacity.
+- Much of the document concerns education; apply research-specific provisions
+  with local policy.
+
+### ICMJE (2026) — official publishing recommendations
+
+International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
+[*Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing*](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence).
+Recommendations page dated 2026.
+
+- Humans remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, permissions,
+  confidentiality, and disclosure; AI tools are not authors.
+- Publishing guidance does not replace institutional research policy.
+
+### ALLEA (2023) — research-integrity code
+
+ALLEA,
+[*The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2023 Revised
+Edition*](https://allea.org/portfolio-item/european-code-of-conduct-2023).
+[DOI 10.26356/ECOC](https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC). Published 2023.
+
+- Cross-disciplinary self-regulatory framework recognized as a reference for
+  EU-funded research.
+- General principles require translation into institutional and
+  discipline-specific procedures.
+
+## Dual-use and responsible life sciences
+
+### WHO global framework and current program
+
+World Health Organization,
+[*Ensuring responsible use of life sciences research*](https://www.who.int/activities/ensuring-responsible-use-of-life-sciences-research).
+Program page accessed 23 July 2026; it indexes the 13 September 2022 Global
+Guidance Framework and materials through a 15 June 2026 meeting report.
+
+- Frames dual-use risk mitigation as individual and collective,
+  multi-stakeholder work across life sciences and relevant emerging
+  technologies.
+- Global guidance must be applied with jurisdictional and institutional rules.
+
+### Current U.S. policy-status notice
+
+U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic
+Preparedness and Response,
+[*Dual Use Research of Concern Oversight Policy Framework*](https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Pages/Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern-Oversight-Policy-Framework.aspx).
+Current-status notice accessed 23 July 2026.
+
+- The page states that federal departments and agencies will revise or replace
+  the 2024 DURC/PEPP policy in response to the 5 May 2025 executive order and
+  that the page will be updated when revised policy is available.
+- Therefore this skill does not present the 2024 policy as a stable current
+  checklist; researchers should consult their institution and current agency
+  materials.
+
+## Research method
+
+Parallel CLI searches used focused academic and official-domain queries for:
+
+- interactive versus nominal brainstorming and productivity blocking;
+- NGT, Delphi, and structured expert elicitation;
+- divergent/convergent idea generation and selection;
+- NIH rigor, reproducibility, and SABV;
+- preregistration, Registered Reports, and open-science guidance;
+- responsible AI, hallucinated citations, homogenization, confidentiality,
+  research integrity, and disclosure;
+- WHO and U.S. dual-use policy status.
+
+Canonical sources were then fetched with `parallel-cli extract` using focused
+objectives for bibliographic metadata, methods, findings, limitations, and
+current policy status. No research JSON artifacts were saved in the skill.

package/org-skills/scientific-critical-thinking/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 K-Dense Inc.
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.