/abductive-hypothesis-generation
Strategy: Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies
$ npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill abductive-hypothesis-generation --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/abductive-hypothesis-generation
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Strategy: Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies
SKILL.md
abductive-hypothesis-generation.SKILL.mdname: abductive-hypothesis-generation
description: 'Strategy: Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies'
version: 1.0.0
category: hypothesis-formation
type: strategy
campaign: hypothesis-formulation
tactics:
- anomaly-driven-abduction
sops:
- anomaly-characterization
- explanation-generation
- plausibility-ranking
- falsifiability-check
dependencies:
tactics:
- anomaly-driven-abduction
sops:
- falsifiability-check
Abductive Hypothesis Generation
Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies: when an anomalous phenomenon that existing theory cannot explain is observed, systematically generate candidate explanations and select the most plausible one as the hypothesis.
When to Use
- A clear anomalous phenomenon is observed (a result inconsistent with existing theoretical predictions)
- Existing theory cannot adequately explain a known phenomenon
- One of several competing explanations must be selected as the most worth testing
- The research starting point is "this result is strange, why?"
Not applicable: no clear anomaly, just wanting to explore a new field → use inductive-hypothesis-generation instead.
Thinking Framework
**Anomaly → Generate candidate explanations → Rank by plausibility → Best explanation = hypothesis**
The core logic of abductive reasoning:
1. **Anomaly**: precisely describe the anomaly — what phenomenon, inconsistent with what expectation, how large the deviation 2. **Generate candidate explanations**: systematically generate all candidate explanations that can account for the anomaly (no premature filtering) 3. **Rank by plausibility**: rank by plausibility — which explanation is most parsimonious, most consistent with known facts, most testable 4. **Best explanation = hypothesis**: select the most plausible explanation as the working hypothesis, retaining the rest as competing hypotheses
**Core principles of abduction**:
- **Occam's razor**: when explanatory power is comparable, prefer the explanation with fewer assumptions
- **Consistency**: the best explanation should not contradict other known facts
- **Testability**: the best explanation must be able to produce observable predictions (otherwise it cannot be verified)
- **Generation completeness**: candidate explanations must be exhausted before ranking, to avoid premature convergence
Budget Gate
| Tier | Anomaly description | Candidate explanations | Hypothesis output | Competing hypotheses | |------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | S | 1 precisely described anomaly | ≥2 candidate explanations | 1 best-explanation hypothesis | ≥1 competing hypothesis retained | | M | 1–2 anomalies | ≥3 candidate explanations | ≥2 structured hypotheses | complete plausibility ranking | | L | ≥2 related anomalies | ≥5 candidate explanations | ≥3 structured hypotheses | complete ranking + discriminating prediction design |
Default Reference Flow
1. Call the `anomaly-characterization` SOP: precisely describe the anomaly (phenomenon, expectation, deviation, excluded trivial explanations) 2. Call the `explanation-generation` SOP (via the `anomaly-driven-abduction` tactic): systematically generate candidate explanations (no premature filtering) 3. Call the `plausibility-ranking` SOP: rank candidate explanations by parsimony, consistency, and testability 4. Call the `falsifiability-check` SOP: generate a falsification scenario for the best explanation, confirming its testability
context-checkpoint
Record after each round:
- Anomaly description (precise version, with deviation quantification)
- Candidate explanation list (including excluded trivial explanations and exclusion reasons)
- Plausibility ranking result (including ranking basis)
- Best-explanation hypothesis + competing hypothesis list
- Discriminating predictions (what experiment can distinguish the best explanation from competing explanations)
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | anomaly-driven-abduction | Tactic: Inductive/abductive path — describe anomalous phenomena, generate candidate explanations, rank by plausibility |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | falsifiability-check | SOP: check whether a hypothesis meets the falsifiability criterion |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
Read more
name: abductive-hypothesis-generation description: 'Strategy: Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies' version: 1.0.0 category: hypothesis-formation type: strategy campaign: hypothesis-formulation tactics: - anomaly-driven-abduction sops: - anomaly-characterization - explanation-generation - plausibility-ranking - falsifiability-check dependencies: tactics: - anomaly-driven-abduction sops: - falsifiability-check
Abductive Hypothesis Generation
Inference to the best explanation in the face of anomalies: when an anomalous phenomenon that existing theory cannot explain is observed, systematically generate candidate explanations and select the most plausible one as the hypothesis.
When to Use
- A clear anomalous phenomenon is observed (a result inconsistent with existing theoretical predictions)
- Existing theory cannot adequately explain a known phenomenon
- One of several competing explanations must be selected as the most worth testing
- The research starting point is "this result is strange, why?"
Not applicable: no clear anomaly, just wanting to explore a new field → use inductive-hypothesis-generation instead.
Thinking Framework
**Anomaly → Generate candidate explanations → Rank by plausibility → Best explanation = hypothesis**
The core logic of abductive reasoning:
1. **Anomaly**: precisely describe the anomaly — what phenomenon, inconsistent with what expectation, how large the deviation 2. **Generate candidate explanations**: systematically generate all candidate explanations that can account for the anomaly (no premature filtering) 3. **Rank by plausibility**: rank by plausibility — which explanation is most parsimonious, most consistent with known facts, most testable 4. **Best explanation = hypothesis**: select the most plausible explanation as the working hypothesis, retaining the rest as competing hypotheses
**Core principles of abduction**:
- **Occam's razor**: when explanatory power is comparable, prefer the explanation with fewer assumptions
- **Consistency**: the best explanation should not contradict other known facts
- **Testability**: the best explanation must be able to produce observable predictions (otherwise it cannot be verified)
- **Generation completeness**: candidate explanations must be exhausted before ranking, to avoid premature convergence
Budget Gate
| Tier | Anomaly description | Candidate explanations | Hypothesis output | Competing hypotheses | |------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | S | 1 precisely described anomaly | ≥2 candidate explanations | 1 best-explanation hypothesis | ≥1 competing hypothesis retained | | M | 1–2 anomalies | ≥3 candidate explanations | ≥2 structured hypotheses | complete plausibility ranking | | L | ≥2 related anomalies | ≥5 candidate explanations | ≥3 structured hypotheses | complete ranking + discriminating prediction design |
Default Reference Flow
1. Call the `anomaly-characterization` SOP: precisely describe the anomaly (phenomenon, expectation, deviation, excluded trivial explanations) 2. Call the `explanation-generation` SOP (via the `anomaly-driven-abduction` tactic): systematically generate candidate explanations (no premature filtering) 3. Call the `plausibility-ranking` SOP: rank candidate explanations by parsimony, consistency, and testability 4. Call the `falsifiability-check` SOP: generate a falsification scenario for the best explanation, confirming its testability
context-checkpoint
Record after each round:
- Anomaly description (precise version, with deviation quantification)
- Candidate explanation list (including excluded trivial explanations and exclusion reasons)
- Plausibility ranking result (including ranking basis)
- Best-explanation hypothesis + competing hypothesis list
- Discriminating predictions (what experiment can distinguish the best explanation from competing explanations)
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | anomaly-driven-abduction | Tactic: Inductive/abductive path — describe anomalous phenomena, generate candidate explanations, rank by plausibility |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | falsifiability-check | SOP: check whether a hypothesis meets the falsifiability criterion |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
The complete research orchestration system for AI-native science. What It Does Design Philosophy Architecture (v3.2.2) Quick Start Configuration Roadmap License DARE is not a tool that helps you do research. It is the researcher.
Repo: yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine
Other skills on de-anthropocentric-research-engine.
- /formated-results
Closing skill for the research-executor, loaded as the last step of formated-specs. Summarize the design just produced into one research-result JSON fenced block in your reply. Do not execute the research.
Open skill - /formated-specs
Spec-slot skill for the research-executor. Emit the 4-layer DARE orchestration of the assigned topic as one research-graph JSON fenced block in your reply. Replaces the generic spec-writing step.
Open skill - /injection-fidelity
Loss-1 judge (codex role). Given one sample's de-identified dialogue and its PolicyCard, decide axis-by-axis whether the user-simulator enacted the card's per-axis pressure. Judge enactment of the card, never whether the research is good.
Open skill - /ladder-quality-order
Loss-2 judge (codex role). Over one topic's 6 shuffled research-design samples, pairwise-rank by quality using the D1–D5 standard. Emit the pairwise log; the harness computes the order and the ladder verdicts. Judge quality difference, never against academic standards.
Open skill - /optimization-loop
The optimizer brain for the ladder-foundry pretraining loop. Runs the two-level nested batch loop, delegates gating to gate_eval, attributes a failing batch to one weight (attribute-first), and recovers from disk after compaction. Control flow is fully scripted; only the
Open skill - /acu-nugget-recall
Tactic: Extract atomic units from one paper and score how much of a caller-supplied summary covers. Use for ACU-style binary or Nugget-style ternary recall checks; cannot run without a target summary.
Open skill

