Scientific Problem Selection
AnthropicOfficialPublished by Anthropic
- Skill
- Guidelines
- Science and research
- Apache-2.0
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
Scientific Problem Selection provides a structured, conversational approach to navigating the research lifecycle. Based on the principles of problem choice over execution quality, this skill helps researchers move from initial ideation to strategic planning. It guides users through nine specific modules—including intuition pumps, risk assessment, and decision tree navigation—to ensure that time is invested in high-impact, feasible problems. By treating research as a series of testable assumptions and strategic decision points, the framework helps scientists avoid common pitfalls, manage adversity, and optimize their research strategy.
What it does
- Facilitates project ideation using structured intuition pumps.
- Performs rigorous risk assessment and assumption analysis.
- Defines success metrics through optimization functions.
- Navigates complex decision trees for project troubleshooting.
- Provides strategies for adversity response and problem inversion.
- Synthesizes research plans into coherent communication packages.
When to use it
- When choosing a new thesis, postdoc, or lab research direction.
- When a project is stuck and requires a strategic pivot.
- When evaluating the feasibility and impact of a new research idea.
- When planning long-term research strategy or navigating career transitions.
- When preparing for committee meetings or grant applications.
Advantages
- Increases research impact by prioritizing problem selection over incremental execution.
- Reduces time wasted on dead-end projects through early risk identification.
- Provides a repeatable, evidence-based framework for scientific decision-making.
- Helps transform crises into opportunities for project growth.
- Encourages objective evaluation of biological and technical assumptions.
Usage examples
- “I have an idea for a new project involving CRISPR, but I am not sure if it is worth pursuing.”
- The agent initiates the ideation workflow, asking for a summary and guiding the user through intuition pumps to refine the idea and assess its potential impact.
- “My current experiment is failing and I am stuck. Can you help me troubleshoot?”
- The agent shifts to the troubleshooting workflow, helping the user identify the core problem, analyze assumptions, and navigate the decision tree to find a path forward.
- “I need to evaluate the risks of my proposed research strategy.”
- The agent leads the user through a systematic risk assessment, helping to list assumptions, score them by risk level and time-to-test, and identify potential red flags.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/anthropics/scientific-problem-selection/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip scientific-problem-selection.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Anthropic
Scientific Problem Selection Skills
A conversational framework for systematic scientific problem selection based on Fischbach & Walsh's "Problem choice and decision trees in science and engineering" (Cell, 2024).
Getting Started
Present users with three entry points:
1) Pitch an idea for a new project — to work it up together
2) Share a problem in a current project — to troubleshoot together
3) Ask a strategic question — to navigate the decision tree together
This conversational entry meets scientists where they are and establishes a collaborative tone.
Option 1: Pitch an Idea
Initial Prompt
Ask: "Tell me the short version of your idea (1-2 sentences)."
Response Approach
After the user shares their idea, return a quick summary (no more than one paragraph) demonstrating understanding. Note the general area of research and rephrase the idea in a way that highlights its kernel—showing alignment and readiness to dive into details.
Follow-up Prompt
Then ask for more detail: "Now give me a bit more detail. You might include, however briefly or even say where you are unsure:
What exactly you want to do
How you currently plan to do it
If it works, why will it be a big deal
What you think are the major risks"
Workflow
From there, guide the user through the early stages of problem selection and evaluation:
Skill 1: Intuition Pumps - Refine and strengthen the idea
Skill 2: Risk Assessment - Identify and manage project risks
Skill 3: Optimization Function - Define success metrics
Skill 4: Parameter Strategy - Determine what to fix vs. keep flexible
See references/01-intuition-pumps.md, references/02-risk-assessment.md, references/03-optimization-function.md, and references/04-parameter-strategy.md for detailed guidance.
Option 2: Troubleshoot a Problem
Initial Prompt
Ask: "Tell me a short version of your problem (1-2 sentences or whatever is easy)."
Response Approach
After the user shares their problem, return a quick summary (no more than one paragraph) demonstrating understanding. Note the context of the project where the problem occurred and rephrase the problem—highlighting its core essence—so the user knows the situation is understood. Also raise additional questions that seem important to discuss.
Follow-up Prompt
Then ask: "Now give me a bit more detail. You might include, however briefly:
The overall goal of your project (if we have not talked about it before)
What exactly went wrong
Your current ideas for fixing it"
Workflow
From there, guide the user through troubleshooting and decision tree navigation:
Skill 5: Decision Tree Navigation - Plan decision points and navigate between execution and strategic thinking
Skill 4: Parameter Strategy - Fix one parameter at a time, let others float
Skill 6: Adversity Response - Frame problems as opportunities for growth
Skill 7: Problem Inversion - Strategies for navigating around obstacles
Always include workarounds that might be useful whether or not the problem can be fixed easily.
See references/05-decision-tree.md, references/06-adversity-planning.md, references/07-problem-inversion.md, and references/04-parameter-strategy.md for detailed guidance.
Option 3: Ask a Strategic Question
Initial Prompt
Ask: "Tell me the short version of your question (1-2 sentences)."
Response Approach
After the user shares their question, return a quick summary (no more than one paragraph) demonstrating understanding. Note the broader context and rephrase the question—highlighting its crux—to confirm alignment with their thinking.
Follow-up Prompt
Then ask: "Now give me a bit more detail. You might include, however briefly:
The setting (i.e., is this about a current or future project)
A bit more detail about what you're thinking"
Workflow
From there, draw on the specific modules from the problem choice framework most appropriate to the question:
Skills 1-4 for future project planning (ideation, risk, optimization, parameters)
Skills 5-7 for current project navigation (decision trees, adversity, inversion)
Skill 8 for communication and synthesis
Skill 9 for comprehensive workflow orchestration
See the complete reference materials in the references/ folder.
Core Framework Concepts
The Central Insight
Problem Choice >> Execution Quality
Even brilliant execution of a mediocre problem yields incremental impact. Good execution of an important problem yields substantial impact.
The Time Paradox
Scientists typically spend:
Days choosing a problem
Years solving it
This imbalance limits impact. These skills help invest more time choosing wisely.
Evaluation Axes
For Evaluating Ideas:
X-axis: Likelihood of success
Y-axis: Impact if successful
Skills help move ideas rightward (more feasible) and upward (more impactful).
The Risk Paradox
Don't avoid risk—befriend it
No risk = incremental work
But: Multiple miracles = avoid or refine
Balance: Understood, quantified, manageable risk
The Parameter Paradox
Too many fixed = brittleness
Too few fixed = paralysis
Sweet spot: Fix ONE meaningful constraint
The Adversity Principle
Crises are inevitable (don't be surprised)
Crises are opportune (don't waste them)
Strategy: Fix problem AND upgrade project simultaneously
The 9 Skills Overview
| Skill | Purpose | Output | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Intuition Pumps | Generate high-quality research ideas | Problem Ideation Document | ~1 week |
| 2. Risk Assessment | Identify and manage project risks | Risk Assessment Matrix | 3-5 days |
| 3. Optimization Function | Define success metrics | Impact Assessment Document | 2-3 days |
| 4. Parameter Strategy | Decide what to fix vs. keep flexible | Parameter Strategy Document | 2-3 days |
| 5. Decision Tree Navigation | Plan decision points and altitude dance | Decision Tree Map | 2 days |
| 6. Adversity Response | Prepare for crises as opportunities | Adversity Playbook | 2 days |
| 7. Problem Inversion | Navigate around obstacles | Problem Inversion Analysis | 1 day |
| 8. Integration & Synthesis | Synthesize into coherent plan | Project Communication Package | 3-5 days |
| 9. Meta-Framework | Orchestrate complete workflow | Complete Project Package | 1-6 weeks |
Skill Workflow
SKILL 1: Intuition Pumps
| (generates idea)
v
SKILL 2: Risk Assessment
| (evaluates feasibility)
v
SKILL 3: Optimization Function
| (defines success metrics)
v
SKILL 4: Parameter Strategy
| (determines flexibility)
v
SKILL 5: Decision Tree
| (plans execution and evaluation)
v
SKILL 6: Adversity Planning
| (prepares for failure modes)
v
SKILL 7: Problem Inversion
| (provides pivot strategies)
v
SKILL 8: Integration & Communication
| (synthesizes into coherent plan)
v
SKILL 9: Meta-Skill
(orchestrates complete workflow)Key Design Principles
Conversational Entry - Meet users where they are with three clear starting points
Thoughtful Interaction - Ask clarifying questions; low confidence prompts additional input
Literature Integration - Use PubMed searches at strategic points for validation
Concrete Outputs - Every skill produces tangible 1-2 page documents
Building Specificity - Progressive detail emerges through targeted questions
Flexibility - Skills work independently, sequentially, or iteratively
Scientific Rigor - Claims about generality and feasibility should be evidence-based
Who Should Use These Skills
Graduate Students (Primary Audience)
When: Choosing thesis projects, qualifying exams, committee meetings
Focus: Skills 1-3 (ideation, risk, impact) + Skill 9 (complete workflow)
Timeline: 2-4 weeks for comprehensive planning
Postdocs
When: Starting new position, planning independent projects, fellowship applications
Focus: All skills, emphasizing independence and risk management
Timeline: 1-2 weeks intensive planning
Principal Investigators
When: New lab, new direction, mentoring trainees, grant cycles
Focus: Skills 1, 3, 4, 6 (ideation, impact, parameters, adversity)
Timeline: Ongoing, integrate into lab culture
Startup Founders
When: Company inception, pivot decisions, investor pitches
Focus: Skills 1-4 (ideation through parameters) + Skill 8 (communication)
Timeline: 1-2 weeks for initial planning, revisit quarterly
Reference Materials
Detailed skill documentation is available in the references/ folder:
| File | Content | Search Patterns |
|---|---|---|
01-intuition-pumps.md | Generate research ideas | Intuition Pump #, Trap #, Phase [0-9] |
02-risk-assessment.md | Risk identification | Risk.*1-5, go/no-go, assumption |
03-optimization-function.md | Success metrics | Generality.*Learning, optimization, impact |
04-parameter-strategy.md | Parameter fixation | fixed.*float, constraint, parameter |
05-decision-tree.md | Decision tree navigation | altitude, Level [0-9], decision |
06-adversity-planning.md | Adversity response | adversity, crisis, ensemble |
07-problem-inversion.md | Problem inversion strategies | Strategy [0-9], inversion, goal |
08-integration-synthesis.md | Integration and synthesis | narrative, communication, story |
09-meta-framework.md | Complete workflow | Phase, workflow, orchestrat |
Expected Outcomes
Immediate (After Completing Workflow)
Clear project vision
Honest risk assessment
Contingency plans
Communication materials ready
Confidence in problem choice
6-Month
Faster decisions (have framework)
Productive adversity handling
No existential crises (risks mitigated)
2-Year
Published results or strong progress
Avoided dead-end projects
Career aligned with goals
Time well-spent (ultimate measure)
Foundational Reference
Fischbach, M.A., & Walsh, C.T. (2024). "Problem choice and decision trees in science and engineering." Cell, 187, 1828-1833.
Based on course BIOE 395 taught at Stanford University.
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer1004 B
- LICENSE.txt10.0 KiB
- SKILL.md10.9 KiB
- references/01-intuition-pumps.md12.2 KiB
- references/02-risk-assessment.md12.9 KiB
- references/03-optimization-function.md17.7 KiB
- references/04-parameter-strategy.md14.1 KiB
- references/05-decision-tree.md3.2 KiB
- references/06-adversity-planning.md4.6 KiB
- references/07-problem-inversion.md5.5 KiB
- references/08-integration-synthesis.md5.3 KiB
- references/09-meta-framework.md16.2 KiB
references/04-parameter-strategy.md
SKILL 4: Parameter Fixation Strategy
Overview
This skill helps scientists strategically decide which parameters to fix and which to keep flexible in their project. The paradox: too many fixed parameters creates brittleness, but too few causes paralysis. The key is fixing ONE parameter thoughtfully and letting others float—constraints engender creativity.
Core Principle
"Fix one parameter; let the others float."
Most failure modes in ideation involve fixing too many parameters at the outset (system + method + application). Conversely, statements like "I want to do impactful work in cell engineering" are so broad they cause paralysis. The sweet spot: fix one meaningful constraint and let creativity flow within that boundary.
What Are Project Parameters?
Parameters are the choices that define your project:
Common Parameters:
System: Which organism/cell type/tissue/molecule?
Question: What biological phenomenon to study?
Tool/Method: Which experimental approach?
Application: What practical use or goal?
Output: What form will results take?
Collaborators: Who will you work with?
Timeline: How fast must you move?
Resources: What's available/necessary?
The Skill Workflow
Phase 1: Parameter Inventory (10 minutes)
First, let's identify what's already fixed in your current project idea:
Question 1: List your project parameters
For each category, indicate if it's FIXED (must stay) or FLOATING (could change):
| Parameter Type | Your Choice | Status (F/FL) | Why Fixed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| System | [organism/cell/tissue] | F / FL | [reason] |
| Question | [biological phenomenon] | F / FL | [reason] |
| Tool/Method | [techniques] | F / FL | [reason] |
| Application | [use case/goal] | F / FL | [reason] |
| Timeline | [duration] | F / FL | [reason] |
| Resources | [equipment/funding] | F / FL | [reason] |
Question 2: Count your fixed parameters
How many did you mark as FIXED? _____
If >2, you may have over-constrained the problem
Question 3: Why are they fixed?
For each fixed parameter, is it because:
A. Your expertise/passion
B. Lab resources/capabilities
C. Advisor requirements
D. You think it's the "best" solution
E. Historical accident (you started this way)
Phase 2: The GLP-1 Example (Case Study)
Let's learn from a concrete example:
Proposed Project: Engineer a T cell to produce GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) for continuous supply.
Analysis: What's Fixed?
Improving GLP-1 receptor agonist delivery characteristics (the problem)
Using an engineered T cell (the solution)
Problem: Two parameters fixed = poor technique-application match
Alternative Framings:
If you fix Parameter 1 (GLP-1 delivery):
Let the solution float
Better options: peptide engineering for extended half-life, oral peptides, small molecules, B cells (better protein secretion)
Why T cell is suboptimal: Not designed for protein secretion
Best for: Trainee in metabolism lab who cares about GLP-1
If you fix Parameter 2 (Engineered T cell):
Let the application float
Better options: local-acting peptides (cytokines, chemokines, growth factors) for oncology/autoimmunity/regeneration
Why GLP-1 is suboptimal: Doesn't leverage T cell's natural capabilities
Best for: Trainee in immunology/cell engineering lab
Key Insight: Which parameter you fix depends on YOUR interests and your lab's expertise. Both can lead to great projects, but they're DIFFERENT projects.
Phase 3: Diagnostic Questions
The Goldilocks Test:
Too Many Fixed Parameters (>2):
Are you forcing a technique-application match?
If one assumption fails, does everything fail?
Are you more attached to HOW than WHAT?
Does your project sound like: "Use X to do Y in Z"?
Too Few Fixed Parameters (0-1 very broad):
Do you feel paralyzed where to start?
Is your statement super generic? ("Do impactful work in...")
Are you avoiding commitment?
Do you have decision fatigue?
Just Right (1-2 well-chosen):
Do you have creative constraints?
Can you articulate why THIS constraint matters?
If one approach fails, do alternatives exist?
Does the constraint energize you?
Phase 4: The Illumina Example (Constraints Drive Innovation)
Historical Context: Next-generation sequencing wasn't designed; we got Illumina's approach (many short reads).
Initial Constraint: Short reads seemed like a limitation
Not what we would have "asked for"
Seemed inferior to long reads
Innovation Unleashed:
Computational methods (assembly algorithms)
Novel applications (RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq)
Unexpected uses (protein folding via sequencing)
Biochemical creativity to work within constraints
Lesson: Constraints don't limit creativity—they focus it. If you feel stuck, fix ONE parameter and watch resourcefulness emerge.
Phase 5: Which Parameter Should You Fix?
Strategic Questions to Identify the Right Fixed Parameter:
What can you prototype quickly?
What test article could you build rapidly?
Which experimental conditions enable early go/no-go?
What gives you fastest feedback?
What are people around you unusually good at?
Lab expertise?
Core facility capabilities?
Collaborator strengths?
Your unique skill combination?
What do you enjoy so much you don't think of it as work?
System you're passionate about?
Technique you love?
Type of question that excites you?
What's your competitive advantage?
Unique resource access?
Rare skill combination?
Proprietary data/reagents?
First-mover opportunity?
Common Strategic Choices:
Fix the System (Let question & tool float):
Good if: You're an expert in the organism/tissue/cell type
Enables: Asking multiple questions, trying various tools
Example: "I study Drosophila neural development; I'll let the specific questions and methods emerge"
Fix the Question (Let system & tool float):
Good if: You care deeply about a biological phenomenon
Enables: Testing across systems, using best tool for each
Example: "I want to understand phase separation; I'll study it wherever it's clearest"
Fix the Tool (Let system & question float):
Good if: You're developing or mastering a technology
Enables: Finding best applications, comparing across systems
Example: "I'm building a new microscopy method; I'll find the most impactful uses"
Fix the Application (Let system & tool float):
Good if: You have a specific translational goal
Enables: Trying multiple approaches, testing in different models
Example: "I want to treat disease X; I'm open to any validated approach"
Phase 6: Parameter Flexibility Matrix
For your project, let's create a flexibility assessment:
| Parameter | Currently | Should Be? | If Problem Arises, Could This Float? |
|---|---|---|---|
| System | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
| Question | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
| Tool | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
| Application | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
| Timeline | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
| Resources | [F/FL] | [F/FL] | Yes / No / Maybe |
Analysis:
Flexibility Score: How many "Yes" or "Maybe"? _____
Risk Assessment: If <3 can float, you're brittle
Pivot Potential: Which parameters provide escape routes?
Phase 7: Scenario Planning
For each fixed parameter, let's plan what happens if it becomes untenable:
Fixed Parameter 1: [Name it]
Why it's fixed: [Your reason]
Risk if this fails: [What breaks]
Contingency: [What could you float instead]
Alternative project: [If you fixed something else]
Fixed Parameter 2: [Name it]
Why it's fixed: [Your reason]
Risk if this fails: [What breaks]
Contingency: [What could you float instead]
Alternative project: [If you fixed something else]
Phase 8: The Unfixing Exercise
Sometimes you need to unfix parameters to escape a rut:
Current State: [Describe your over-constrained project]
Unfixing Experiment:
Try 1: Unfix the System
Keep question & tool
What other systems could you study?
Which would be easier/faster/more informative?
Try 2: Unfix the Tool
Keep system & question
What other methods exist?
Which are more mature/accessible/powerful?
Try 3: Unfix the Question
Keep system & tool
What other questions could you ask?
Which would be more impactful/feasible?
Evaluation: Does any "unfixed" version seem better than your original? If yes, you over-constrained.
Phase 9: Literature Reality Check
Let's use PubMed to see how others handled parameter fixation:
Search 1: Successful projects in your area
What did they fix?
What did they let float?
Did they pivot from their initial parameter choices?
Search 2: Failed or stalled projects
(Often in discussion sections or preprints)
Did they over-constrain?
What parameters trapped them?
Search 3: Method papers
How did technology developers choose applications?
Did they fix the tool and let applications emerge?
Your Searches: What specific papers should we analyze for parameter lessons?
Output Deliverable
2-Page Parameter Strategy Document
Page 1: Current State and Analysis
Parameter Inventory:
| Parameter | Current Status | Strategic Rationale | Flexibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| System | Fixed: [X] | [Why] | Can float if: [condition] |
| Question | Floating: [Y,Z] | [Why] | Constrained by: [X] |
| Tool | [Status] | [Why] | [Contingency] |
| Application | [Status] | [Why] | [Contingency] |
Diagnostic Summary:
Fixed Parameters: [Count and list]
Assessment: ☐ Too Many (>2) / ☐ Just Right (1-2) / ☐ Too Few (0, too broad)
Primary Fixed Parameter: [The one that matters most]
Reason for Fixation: [Expertise/Passion/Resources/Other]
Goldilocks Test Results:
Over-constrained indicators: [Yes/No to each test]
Under-constrained indicators: [Yes/No to each test]
Verdict: [Analysis]
Page 2: Strategy and Contingencies
Recommended Parameter Strategy:
Core Fixed Parameter: [The one to keep]
Rationale: [Why this one]
Your advantage: [Expertise/access/passion]
Enables: [What becomes possible]
Parameters That Should Float: [List]
[Parameter 1]: [How to explore alternatives]
[Parameter 2]: [How to explore alternatives]
If Core Assumptions Fail:
Scenario 1: [Specific failure mode]
Unfix: [Which parameter to let float]
Alternative 1: [New configuration]
Alternative 2: [Another option]
Scenario 2: [Another failure mode]
Unfix: [Which parameter]
Alternative 1: [New configuration]
Alternative 2: [Another option]
Project Ensemble:
Core Fixed: [X]
Possible Projects:
1. [X] + [A] + [B1] → [Outcome]
2. [X] + [A] + [B2] → [Outcome]
3. [X] + [C] + [B1] → [Outcome]
All share [X], but float other parametersStrategic Questions Answered:
Quick prototype: [How to test quickly]
Team strengths: [Who's good at what]
Your passion: [What energizes you]
Competitive advantage: [Your edge]
Historical Parallel:
[Example like Illumina where constraints drove innovation in your field]
The constraint: [What seemed limiting]
The innovation: [How people worked within it]
Your application: [How this applies to your project]
Practical Examples
Example 1: GLP-1 T Cell Project (Over-Constrained)
Fixed: GLP-1 delivery + T cell engineering
Problem: Poor technique-application match
Solution: Unfix one parameter
Fix delivery, float cell type → Better options emerge
Fix T cell, float payload → Better applications emerge
Example 2: Drosophila Neurobiologist (Well-Constrained)
Fixed: Drosophila nervous system
Floating: Specific questions, methods
Works because: Deep system expertise, many tools available
Enables: Pursuing most impactful questions as field evolves
Example 3: "Impactful Cell Engineering" (Under-Constrained)
Fixed: Nothing specific
Problem: Paralysis from too many options
Solution: Fix one meaningful constraint
Option A: Fix CAR-T platform → Find best applications
Option B: Fix autoimmune disease → Find best cell engineering approach
Option C: Fix specific rare disease → Let methods emerge
Key Principles to Remember
Constraints Engender Creativity: Limitations focus resourcefulness
One Parameter Rule: Fix one meaningful constraint, let others float
Match to Your Strengths: Fix the parameter you have advantage in
Technique-Application Match: Don't force tools into wrong problems
Flexibility = Resilience: Floating parameters provide pivot options
Historical Lesson: Best technologies emerged from working within constraints (Illumina)
Not Forever: Parameters can unfix mid-project when stuck
Warning Signs
Over-Constrained (Too Many Fixed):
Project sounds like: "Use X to study Y in Z"
When one assumption fails, everything fails
You're attached to HOW more than WHAT
Forcing a technique-application match
Under-Constrained (Too Few/Vague):
Statement is incredibly broad ("impactful work in...")
Feeling paralyzed about where to start
Avoiding commitment due to infinite options
No clear next experimental step
Well-Constrained:
One clear fixed parameter with good rationale
Multiple paths within that constraint
Energized by the focused challenge
If one approach fails, alternatives exist
Ready to Begin?
Let's start with Phase 1. Please provide:
Your current project description
List of what you think is fixed vs. floating
Your lab's core expertise
What aspect excites you most
Together we'll optimize your parameter strategy for maximum creativity and resilience.
Remember: The right constraint is liberating, not limiting. It channels creativity into productive directions while maintaining flexibility for pivots.
Requirements and compatibility
Written for: Claude Code, Claude apps
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Anthropic
- Publisher
- Anthropic (Official)
- Source
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins · bio-research/skills/scientific-problem-selection · commit e050c2e
- Licence
- Apache License 2.0 (redistribution allowed)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
- Also distributed in
- anthropics/life-sciences
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Anthropic.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download scientific-problem-selection.zip