@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.3 → 2.15.5

package/org-skills/hypothesis-generation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+---
+name: hypothesis-generation
+description: "Formulate evidence-bounded scientific questions, candidate hypotheses, rival explanations, causal or associational claims, discriminating predictions, measurements, and preregistration-ready analysis plans. Use when turning observations or preliminary findings into transparent, testable research plans without treating hypotheses as facts."
+tags: ["research","science"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
+source_path: "skills/hypothesis-generation"
+source_commit: 49c6e97775eaa18ba791bebe23162a70ae601c18
+---
+# Scientific Hypothesis Generation
+
+Turn an observation into a transparent set of candidate explanations and tests. A hypothesis is a proposal to be challenged, not a finding, fact, diagnosis, or recommendation.
+
+## Non-negotiable boundaries
+
+Before using unpublished, sensitive, controlled, personal, proprietary, export-controlled, or security-relevant material:
+
+1. Confirm authorization and the applicable institutional, funder, publisher, data-use, privacy, and AI policies.
+2. Keep the material local unless an authorized human explicitly approves a named external destination and data scope.
+3. Minimize inputs. Do not place sensitive or unpublished data in web searches or external AI systems without authorization.
+4. Stop at the appropriate human, animal, biosafety, dual-use, data-governance, or regulatory gate.
+
+Never:
+
+- present a hypothesis, mechanism, causal effect, citation, or apparent pattern as established evidence;
+- claim novelty because a quick search found nothing;
+- infer causation from association, temporal order alone, predictive accuracy, or model output;
+- supply patient-specific diagnosis, treatment, dose, prognosis, or other clinical advice;
+- provide harmful experimental optimization or operational detail for pathogens, toxins, weapons, evasion, or other misuse;
+- bypass IRB/REC, IACUC, IBC, biosafety, dual-use, privacy, legal, or regulatory review;
+- fabricate sources, identifiers, search coverage, data, results, approvals, or preregistration;
+- automatically score, rank, select, accept, or reject scientific hypotheses.
+
+If a request crosses a safety gate, produce only a high-level risk/oversight note and route it to the qualified local authority. Do not continue with operational detail.
+
+## Keep the objects distinct
+
+| Object | Meaning |
+|---|---|
+| **Observation** | What was measured, noticed, or reported, with provenance and uncertainty |
+| **Research question** | The answerable question that defines scope |
+| **Hypothesis** | A candidate explanatory or relational proposition |
+| **Mechanism** | The proposed process connecting conditions to an outcome |
+| **Causal estimand** | The precisely defined causal contrast to estimate |
+| **Prediction** | An observable implication derived before checking the target result |
+| **Alternative explanation** | A rival account, including bias or non-causal explanations |
+| **Null hypothesis** | A specified no-effect/no-difference model used by an analysis |
+| **Negative control** | A control expected not to operate through the proposed mechanism |
+| **Operationalization** | How a construct becomes a variable, measurement, intervention, or category |
+| **Analysis plan** | Prespecified transformations, models, contrasts, uncertainty, and decision rules |
+| **Evidence** | Observations or sources that bear on a claim; never the claim itself |
+
+Do not collapse these labels. A mechanistic story is not a prediction; a prediction is not evidence; rejection of one null does not prove a mechanism; support for one candidate does not eliminate unconsidered rivals.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Run the scope and safety gate
+
+Record:
+
+- accountable human owner and intended use;
+- data sensitivity, authorization, retention, and permitted processing;
+- affected people, animals, ecosystems, communities, or security interests;
+- required ethics, feasibility, biosafety, dual-use, and regulatory reviews;
+- unresolved blocks and domain expertise needed.
+
+No script approval is an ethics, safety, regulatory, or scientific approval.
+
+### 2. Freeze the observation
+
+Write the observation before interpretation:
+
+- measurement or source;
+- population, system, place, and time;
+- unit of observation and unit of analysis;
+- uncertainty, missingness, exclusions, and preprocessing;
+- whether the pattern was expected, exploratory, or selected after viewing results.
+
+Use “reported,” “observed,” or “associated,” not causal language, unless a causal design and estimand justify it.
+
+### 3. Frame the research question
+
+Choose a framework only when it fits:
+
+- **PICO/PICOT** for intervention/effectiveness questions: population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and optionally time.
+- **PECO** for exposure questions.
+- **Population–index test–reference standard–target condition** for diagnostic accuracy.
+- **Population–prognostic factor–outcome–time** for prognosis.
+- A domain-specific construct–context–outcome frame for qualitative, descriptive, mechanistic, or theoretical work.
+
+PICO is not a universal template. Define stakeholders, context, boundaries, feasibility, and what answer would change knowledge or practice. FINER is a question-refinement mnemonic—Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant—not a scoring system. Treat “Novel” as unresolved until a documented, fit-for-purpose search and expert review support it.
+
+### 4. Establish a dated evidence boundary
+
+Search before making literature-dependent statements. Prefer primary research, official policies, primary methods papers, current reporting guidelines, and systematic reviews used for orientation.
+
+Record:
+
+- search date and cutoff;
+- databases/indexes, queries, filters, and screening boundary;
+- included and excluded source types;
+- sources supporting, challenging, or contextualizing each claim;
+- known access, language, database, and time limitations.
+
+A search can establish what was searched, not universal absence. Say “not located within the documented search boundary,” never “no prior work exists.” Use `assets/search_boundary_template.json`, `assets/evidence_ledger_template.csv`, and `references/literature_search_strategies.md`.
+
+### 5. Generate rivals before choosing tests
+
+Create multiple candidates from genuinely different explanatory classes when plausible:
+
+- proposed mechanism;
+- measurement or processing artifact;
+- confounding or common cause;
+- selection or attrition;
+- conditioning on a collider;
+- reverse causation;
+- temporal, contextual, or boundary-condition differences;
+- stochastic variation;
+- competing mechanisms at another scale.
+
+Generate an initial rival set independently before AI-assisted expansion to reduce anchoring and homogenization. Do not force a fixed number or false symmetry. Keep every candidate labeled `candidate`.
+
+Platt’s strong-inference pattern motivates alternative hypotheses and crucial tests, but failed alternatives do not make the survivor true. Unknown alternatives, auxiliary assumptions, measurement error, and mixed mechanisms remain possible.
+
+### 6. Declare the claim type and estimand
+
+Classify each target as:
+
+- descriptive;
+- associational;
+- predictive;
+- causal;
+- mechanistic.
+
+For a causal target, define before analysis:
+
+- target population or system;
+- intervention/exposure and comparator;
+- outcome and time horizon;
+- population-level summary;
+- treatment versions and intercurrent-event handling where relevant;
+- identification assumptions and target-trial/design analogue.
+
+Document confounding, selection, collider, measurement, and reverse-causation risks separately. An observational causal estimate remains assumption-dependent. Use `references/causal_inference_and_claims.md`.
+
+### 7. Derive discriminating predictions
+
+For every candidate:
+
+1. State conditions and boundary conditions.
+2. Name the observable and measurement.
+3. State the expected pattern and uncertainty.
+4. State a result incompatible with the candidate under declared assumptions.
+5. Contrast the expected result with at least one rival.
+6. Define indeterminate outcomes and what would be learned from them.
+
+Prefer tests where rivals predict meaningfully different outcomes. Add positive, procedural, and negative controls when scientifically appropriate. A negative control must be incapable of operating through the target mechanism while sharing relevant bias pathways; it is not a decorative untreated group.
+
+Use `assets/prediction_rival_matrix_template.csv` and `assets/falsification_controls_template.json`.
+
+### 8. Operationalize and validate measurement
+
+For every construct record:
+
+- variable role and operational definition;
+- population/system, unit, timing, and conditions;
+- instrument/method, calibration, quality control, and masking;
+- reliability/repeatability;
+- validity evidence and applicability;
+- missingness, detection limits, transformations, cut points, and their rationales;
+- measurement invariance or cross-group comparability when relevant;
+- foreseeable measurement bias and limitations.
+
+Do not treat a convenient proxy as the construct itself. Validate with:
+
+```bash
+python3 scripts/check_operationalization.py local-operationalization.json
+```
+
+### 9. Match design and analysis to the claim
+
+Specify:
+
+- sampling, experimental unit, allocation, randomization, masking, and controls;
+- inclusion/exclusion and stopping rules;
+- sample-size, precision, or information rationale based on declared assumptions;
+- outcomes, contrasts, estimands, models, effect measures, and uncertainty;
+- missing-data and intercurrent-event handling;
+- multiplicity across outcomes, models, subgroups, looks, and hypotheses;
+- assumptions, diagnostics, robustness, and sensitivity analyses;
+- replication or independent validation plan;
+- what is confirmatory versus exploratory.
+
+Do not use universal sample-size minima. Do not interpret a thresholded p-value as the probability a hypothesis is true or as effect importance. See `references/experimental_design_patterns.md`.
+
+For intervention trials, use the current SPIRIT 2025 protocol guidance and CONSORT 2025 reporting guidance where applicable. These improve completeness; they do not certify design quality, ethics, or regulatory compliance.
+
+### 10. Prevent HARKing and expose deviations
+
+Before accessing the target outcomes, timestamp the question, candidates, predictions, outcomes, exclusions, transformations, analysis, multiplicity, missing-data plan, and stopping rule when feasible.
+
+Afterward:
+
+- label data-dependent ideas and analyses exploratory;
+- preserve and report planned analyses;
+- list deviations with date, rationale, who decided, and expected impact;
+- never rewrite an observed pattern as an a priori prediction.
+
+Preregistration is a transparent plan, not a ban on adaptation. Registered Reports add results-blind peer review and in-principle acceptance under journal policy. See `references/preregistration_and_open_science.md`.
+
+### 11. Plan replication and updating
+
+Distinguish:
+
+- **reproducibility:** consistent computational results from the same data/code/conditions;
+- **replicability:** consistency across studies collecting new data for the same question.
+
+Preserve provenance, versions, code, materials, and decision logs when sharing is authorized. Plan independent replication or transport tests across relevant boundaries. Update candidate status when contrary, null, or replication evidence arrives; do not hide negative results.
+
+### 12. Apply human accountability
+
+The accountable human must verify:
+
+- every citation and source-to-claim link;
+- domain plausibility and measurement validity;
+- causal assumptions and statistical design;
+- ethics, feasibility, safety, privacy, and regulatory status;
+- all AI-assisted text, ideas, and citations;
+- whether broader expertise or community input is required.
+
+AI can confabulate citations, anchor reasoning, and homogenize candidate sets. Record permitted AI use and material influence. Keep independent human ideation and rival generation in the process.
+
+## Local tool index
+
+All CLIs are bounded, dependency-free, local, deterministic, and non-scoring:
+
+| Task | Asset | Command |
+|---|---|---|
+| Hypothesis-record schema | `assets/hypothesis_record_template.json` | `python3 scripts/validate_hypothesis_schema.py record.json` |
+| Measurement checklist | `assets/operationalization_template.json` | `python3 scripts/check_operationalization.py checklist.json` |
+| Prediction/rival matrix | `assets/prediction_rival_matrix_template.csv` | `python3 scripts/validate_prediction_matrix.py matrix.csv` |
+| Claim-language lint | Annotated Markdown | `python3 scripts/lint_causal_claims.py draft.md` |
+| Falsification/controls | `assets/falsification_controls_template.json` | `python3 scripts/check_falsification_controls.py controls.json` |
+| Evidence/source audit | `assets/evidence_ledger_template.csv` + `assets/search_boundary_template.json` | `python3 scripts/audit_evidence_ledger.py ledger.csv boundary.json` |
+| Preregistration scaffold | `assets/preregistration_scaffold_template.md` | `python3 scripts/generate_preregistration_scaffold.py record.json -o preregistration.md` |
+
+Exit codes are `0` for structurally valid output, `1` for completed validation with errors, and `2` for malformed/unsafe input. Reports validate declarations and internal consistency only; they do not verify scientific truth or choose a hypothesis. Full schemas are in `references/tool_reference.md`.
+
+## References
+
+- `references/concepts_and_workflow.md` — object model, strong inference, uncertainty, and candidate lifecycle
+- `references/hypothesis_quality_criteria.md` — non-scoring human review criteria
+- `references/literature_search_strategies.md` — traceable, bounded evidence search
+- `references/causal_inference_and_claims.md` — estimands and causal-bias risks
+- `references/experimental_design_patterns.md` — design, controls, measurement, multiplicity, and replication
+- `references/preregistration_and_open_science.md` — preregistration, Registered Reports, deviations, and open science
+- `references/ethics_safety_and_ai.md` — oversight gates, dual use, data handling, and responsible AI
+- `references/tool_reference.md` — CLI schemas, limits, and examples
+- `references/source_ledger.md` — dated authoritative source notes
+- `references/security_validation.md` — baseline findings and validation record
+
+The bundled source ledger is `assets/source_ledger.csv`, verified through **2026-07-23**. Recheck time-sensitive policy and guidance before a later or jurisdiction-specific use.
+
+## Citing Scientific Agent Skills
+
+This skill is part of Scientific Agent Skills by K-Dense. If it materially contributed to a
+manuscript, report, presentation, or code release, add the paper to the references or
+software section and tell the user you did so:
+
+> Kassis, T., Agarwal, V., He, Y., Patel, D., & Brueckner, A. M. (2026). Scientific Agent
+> Skills: A Library of Procedural Knowledge for Research Agents. arXiv:2609.00065.
+> https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00065
+
+Always cite the current version. The DOI and https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00065 resolve to the
+latest arXiv version, so never append a version suffix such as `v1`. When network access is
+available, fetch https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00065 (or
+http://export.arxiv.org/api/query?id_list=2609.00065) before writing the reference and take
+the author list, year, and version from that record. If the record lists a journal reference
+or publisher DOI, cite the published version instead.

package/org-skills/hypothesis-generation/assets/preregistration_scaffold_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# Preregistration scaffold: {{PROJECT_ID}}
+
+> **UNREGISTERED DRAFT — NOT AN APPROVAL OR SCIENTIFIC ENDORSEMENT**
+>
+> Generated locally on {{GENERATED_ON}} from a validated structural record. Complete repository-specific fields, obtain required human/ethics/safety/regulatory review, and verify every statement before registration.
+
+## 1. Administrative record
+
+- Project ID: {{PROJECT_ID}}
+- Accountable human owner: {{HUMAN_OWNER}}
+- Record status: {{RECORD_STATUS}}
+- Record updated: {{UPDATED_ON}}
+- Registration repository and identifier: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Registration timestamp: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Study status and prior access to target data: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Roles, funding, conflicts, sponsor role: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 2. Authorization and oversight gates
+
+{{ETHICS_AND_FEASIBILITY}}
+
+- Human/animal/biosafety/dual-use/data/regulatory determinations and identifiers: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Local policy and jurisdiction checked on: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Unresolved work must not begin until the responsible authority clears it.
+
+## 3. Search boundary and evidence
+
+{{EVIDENCE_BOUNDARY}}
+
+- Attach the completed search-boundary record and evidence ledger.
+- “Not located within this boundary” does not establish universal absence or novelty.
+- Verify every citation and claim-to-source link against the primary source.
+
+## 4. Frozen observation
+
+{{OBSERVATION}}
+
+- Units, preprocessing, exclusions, missingness, and uncertainty: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Whether expected or selected after inspection: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 5. Research question and claim type
+
+{{RESEARCH_QUESTION}}
+
+## 6. Candidate hypotheses and mechanisms
+
+{{HYPOTHESES}}
+
+All listed hypotheses remain candidates. This scaffold does not rank or select one.
+
+## 7. Causal estimand(s), if applicable
+
+{{ESTIMANDS}}
+
+- Target-trial/design analogue and identification logic: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Confounding, selection, collider, measurement, reverse-causation, positivity, and interference assumptions: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 8. Predictions, rivals, and falsification
+
+{{PREDICTIONS}}
+
+- Indeterminate and mixed-mechanism outcomes: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Assumption/manipulation checks required before interpreting a challenge: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 9. Null hypotheses and controls
+
+{{NULLS_AND_CONTROLS}}
+
+- Positive/procedural-control details: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Why each negative control cannot operate through the target mechanism and which bias pathways it shares: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 10. Operationalization and measurement validity
+
+{{OPERATIONALIZATIONS}}
+
+- Validity applicability, reliability/repeatability, calibration, detection limits, masking, missingness, invariance/comparability, and limitations: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 11. Design
+
+- Target population/system and sampling frame: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Experimental/observational unit and analysis unit: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Eligibility, recruitment/selection, and exclusions: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Intervention/exposure and comparator versions: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Allocation, randomization, concealment, and masking: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Measurement schedule and quality control: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Sample-size, precision, or information rationale with sensitivity to assumptions: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Stopping, attrition, and missing-outcome plan: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Replication, transport, and external-validation plan: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 12. Analysis plan
+
+{{ANALYSES}}
+
+- Software, environment, versions, and seeds where applicable: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Assumption diagnostics and model checks: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Full multiplicity family across hypotheses, outcomes, timepoints, subgroups, models, and looks: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Confirmatory versus exploratory outputs: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 13. Data, code, materials, and retention
+
+- Provenance and versioning: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Data/code/material availability or justified restriction: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Consent, privacy, community governance, intellectual property, export-control, biosafety, and dual-use limits: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Approved storage, access, retention, and deletion: [TO COMPLETE]
+
+## 14. AI and tool assistance
+
+{{AI_USE}}
+
+- Named tools/versions and material influence: [TO COMPLETE IF PERMITTED]
+- Verification and disclosure plan: [TO COMPLETE]
+- Sensitive or unpublished information must remain local unless explicitly authorized for a named service and scope.
+
+## 15. Deviations and amendments
+
+{{DEVIATION_PLAN}}
+
+For each deviation record:
+
+- date;
+- affected section and IDs;
+- original plan;
+- change and rationale;
+- decision owner;
+- whether target results were known;
+- expected interpretive impact;
+- whether the original analysis will still be reported.
+
+## 16. Human sign-off
+
+- Domain expert: [NAME / DATE / STATUS]
+- Measurement expert: [NAME / DATE / STATUS]
+- Methodologist/statistician: [NAME / DATE / STATUS]
+- Ethics/safety/data/regulatory authorities as applicable: [NAME / DATE / STATUS]
+- Accountable investigator: [NAME / DATE / STATUS]
+
+No signature turns a hypothesis into fact. Interpret results with uncertainty, rivals, boundary conditions, controls, and replication evidence.

package/org-skills/hypothesis-generation/references/causal_inference_and_claims.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+# Causal Inference and Claim Discipline
+
+## Start with the scientific target
+
+Association, prediction, intervention effects, and mechanisms answer different questions:
+
+- **Descriptive:** What is the distribution or pattern?
+- **Associational:** How do measured variables co-vary in the observed data?
+- **Predictive:** How well does information predict outcomes in a target setting?
+- **Causal:** What would differ under specified interventions or exposure conditions?
+- **Mechanistic:** Through which process would the causal change occur?
+
+A model can predict accurately without identifying a causal effect. A randomized effect estimate can identify an intervention contrast without establishing the complete mechanism.
+
+## Define a causal estimand
+
+Following the causal-question and ICH E9(R1) principles where applicable, specify:
+
+1. **Population/system:** To whom or what does the contrast apply?
+2. **Intervention/exposure:** What condition is set, assigned, or contrasted?
+3. **Comparator:** What alternative condition is compared?
+4. **Outcome:** What variable is affected and how is it measured?
+5. **Time horizon:** When is the outcome assessed?
+6. **Population summary:** Mean difference, risk ratio, quantile contrast, survival summary, or another target.
+7. **Intercurrent events:** How are post-assignment events handled when they affect interpretation or measurement?
+8. **Treatment versions:** Are interventions sufficiently well defined?
+
+The estimand should exist before choosing an estimator or model.
+
+## Counterfactual contrast
+
+Causal effects compare outcomes under different conditions for the same target units, although both conditions cannot usually be observed for one unit. Identification therefore depends on design and assumptions.
+
+For observational data, state:
+
+- target-trial analogue or other design logic;
+- consistency/well-defined intervention assumptions;
+- exchangeability/no-unmeasured-confounding assumptions;
+- positivity/overlap;
+- interference assumptions;
+- measurement and missingness assumptions;
+- model assumptions introduced by estimation.
+
+Do not write “controlled for confounding” as if adjustment proves exchangeability.
+
+## Bias pathways
+
+### Confounding
+
+A common cause of exposure/intervention and outcome can create or obscure an association. Address through design, randomization where ethical/feasible, restriction, matching, measurement and adjustment of justified common causes, negative controls, sensitivity analysis, or triangulation.
+
+Risks:
+
+- unmeasured or poorly measured common causes;
+- time-varying confounders affected by prior treatment;
+- inappropriate adjustment for instruments, mediators, or colliders;
+- residual confounding after coarse categorization.
+
+### Selection bias
+
+Selection into the sample, analysis, follow-up, or observed outcome can depend on causes of exposure and outcome. Record:
+
+- sampling and eligibility;
+- participation and consent;
+- exclusions;
+- attrition and censoring;
+- complete-case restrictions;
+- availability of measurements;
+- conditioning introduced by data linkage.
+
+### Collider bias
+
+A collider is a common effect of two variables. Conditioning on it or its descendant can open a non-causal path. Common sources include:
+
+- selection into a study or subgroup;
+- restricting to diagnosed, hospitalized, tested, or surviving participants;
+- adjusting for a post-exposure variable affected by another cause of the outcome;
+- using complete cases when missingness is jointly caused.
+
+More covariates are not automatically better.
+
+### Reverse causation
+
+The outcome or its precursors may influence the exposure or measurement. Cross-sectional order is especially weak evidence of direction. Use temporal design, lagged measurements, incident outcomes, intervention, negative controls, or explicit bidirectional candidates where appropriate.
+
+### Measurement bias
+
+Measurement error can:
+
+- attenuate or inflate estimates;
+- differ by exposure or outcome;
+- induce apparent interactions;
+- distort covariate adjustment;
+- affect selection into analysis.
+
+Operationalization and validation are part of causal design, not a later documentation task.
+
+## Mediators and effect modifiers
+
+- A **mediator** lies on a causal pathway. Adjusting for it changes the target from total to a direct or controlled effect and introduces additional assumptions.
+- An **effect modifier** describes variation in a causal contrast across strata. It is not synonymous with statistical interaction in every scale.
+- A **confounder** is defined relative to a target causal contrast and design, not simply by association with the outcome.
+
+Label the intended role before analysis and justify it with domain knowledge and a causal structure.
+
+## Negative controls
+
+Lipsitch, Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Cohen distinguish negative-control exposures and outcomes:
+
+- A negative-control exposure should not cause the target outcome through the proposed mechanism but should share relevant confounding/bias pathways.
+- A negative-control outcome should not be caused by the target exposure through the proposed mechanism but should share relevant bias pathways.
+
+Specify:
+
+- why the target mechanism cannot operate;
+- which biases should be shared;
+- expected result;
+- implication of control failure;
+- alternative reasons for a non-null control result.
+
+Negative controls detect some biases under assumptions; they do not prove absence of bias.
+
+## Claim-language rules
+
+### Associational
+
+Use:
+
+- “was associated with”;
+- “co-varied with”;
+- “predicted in the evaluated dataset”;
+- “the adjusted association.”
+
+State design, population, timing, effect/summary measure, uncertainty, and limitations.
+
+### Causal
+
+Use causal verbs only when:
+
+- the causal estimand is explicit;
+- design/identification logic is stated;
+- assumptions and sensitivity are visible;
+- confounding, selection, collider, reverse-causation, and measurement risks are addressed;
+- language is calibrated to the evidence.
+
+For observational work, “estimated causal effect under the stated assumptions” is often more accurate than an unqualified causal declaration.
+
+### Mechanistic
+
+Distinguish:
+
+- direct evidence for process steps;
+- mediation or intermediate measurements;
+- perturbation/rescue evidence;
+- temporal ordering;
+- analogy or plausibility only.
+
+A causal intervention effect does not by itself verify the proposed pathway.
+
+## Markdown claim annotations
+
+The bundled linter recognizes line-level annotations:
+
+```markdown
+[claim:associational] Exposure X was associated with outcome Y in the observed cohort.
+
+[claim:causal][estimand:E1][identification:observational_assumption_dependent][confounding:unresolved][selection:assessed][collider:assessed][reverse-causation:assessed] Under the stated assumptions, intervention X would reduce outcome Y over 12 months.
+```
+
+Allowed risk states are `assessed`, `unresolved`, and `not_applicable`. “Assessed” records that a human evaluation exists; it does not mean the risk is absent.
+
+Run:
+
+```bash
+python3 scripts/lint_causal_claims.py local-draft.md
+```
+
+The linter is lexical. It can miss causal language, flag benign phrases, and cannot judge whether a design identifies an effect.
+
+## Intervention-trial context
+
+For intervention hypotheses:
+
+- align objectives, estimands, outcomes, timing, harms, and analysis;
+- use SPIRIT 2025 for protocol reporting and CONSORT 2025 for trial-result reporting;
+- preserve access to protocol and statistical analysis plan;
+- report important post-start changes and non-prespecified outcomes/analyses;
+- include harms and participant/public involvement where applicable.
+
+Reporting completeness is not proof of ethical approval, design validity, regulatory compliance, or treatment efficacy.