scientific-clarity-checker

# Scientific Clarity Checker

## Table of Contents
- [Purpose](#purpose)
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
- [Core Principles](#core-principles)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Analysis Frameworks](#analysis-frameworks)
- [Common Issues](#common-issues)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

## Purpose

This skill provides systematic review of scientific clarity and logical rigor across any document type. It focuses on hypothesis-data alignment, argument validity, quantitative precision, and appropriate hedging. Use this as a cross-cutting check that complements document-specific skills.

## When to Use

Use this skill when:

- **Logic check needed**: Review scientific argumentation independent of format
- **Claims vs. evidence**: Verify conclusions follow from presented data
- **Terminology audit**: Check consistency and precision of scientific language
- **Pre-submission check**: Final clarity review before sending any document
- **Collaborative review**: Providing scientific critique to colleagues
- **Self-editing**: Checking your own work for blind spots

Trigger phrases: "check scientific clarity", "review the logic", "do claims match data", "scientific rigor check", "hypothesis-data alignment", "is this sound"

**Works with all document types:**
- Manuscripts
- Grants
- Letters
- Presentations
- Abstracts
- Any scientific writing

## Core Principles

**1. Claims must match evidence**: Every conclusion needs explicit support

**2. Precision over vagueness**: Quantify wherever possible

**3. Hedging matches certainty**: Strong claims need strong evidence

**4. Logic must flow**: Arguments should be traceable step by step

**5. Terminology must be consistent**: Same concept = same word

**6. Mechanistic clarity**: The "how" should be explained, not just "what"

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Clarity Check Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Identify core claims and hypotheses
- [ ] Step 2: Structural logic review (argument f