Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Plan the statistical synthesis approach — model selection, heterogeneity strategy, and reporting
.claude/skills/yogsoth-ai-evidence-synthesis-planning/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -9% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 54% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -19% | 0% |
Plan the complete statistical synthesis approach: effect size standardization, model selection, heterogeneity quantification, sensitivity analyses, and PRISMA-compliant reporting.
Determine the appropriate effect size metric for the synthesis.
| Outcome Type | Effect Size | When | |--------------|-------------|------| | Continuous (same scale) | Mean Difference (MD) | All studies use same measurement | | Continuous (different scales) | Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) | Studies use different instruments | | Binary | Odds Ratio (OR) / Risk Ratio (RR) | Dichotomous outcomes | | Time-to-event | Hazard Ratio (HR) | Survival data | | Correlation | Fisher's z (transformed r) | Association studies | | Count/rate | Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) | Event rate data |
SOPs: effect-size-planning
Choose between fixed-effect and random-effects models.
Decision tree: If studies are clinically homogeneous AND methodologically identical → fixed-effect. Otherwise → random-effects with REML + Knapp-Hartung.
Plan heterogeneity quantification and investigation.
SOPs: heterogeneity-source-analysis
Design robustness checks for the primary analysis.
SOPs: sensitivity-analysis-design
Design PRISMA-2020 compliant reporting.
Per execution of this tactic:
yamlsynthesis_plan: effect_size: type: [SMD/OR/RR/MD/HR/z] justification: [why this metric] conversions_needed: [any transformations] model: type: [fixed-effect/random-effects] estimator: [IV/MH/REML/DL/PM] adjustment: [Knapp-Hartung/none] justification: [rationale] heterogeneity: metrics: [I2, tau2, Q, prediction interval] investigation: subgroups: [list of categorical moderators] meta_regression: [list of continuous moderators] minimum_k_per_subgroup: [threshold] sensitivity: - leave_one_out - influence_diagnostics - alternative_model - rob_exclusion - [additional pre-specified] reporting: standard: PRISMA-2020 registration: [PROSPERO ID or plan] grade_domains: [risk_of_bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication_bias]
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | effect-size-planning | Determine effect size types and calculation methods for meta-analytic synthesis | | heterogeneity-source-analysis | Identify and classify sources of between-study heterogeneity (clinical, methodological, statistical) | | sensitivity-analysis-design | Design leave-one-out, influence diagnostics, subgroup analyses, and robustness checks |
<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 24,145 | 14,842 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,384 | 3,991 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 17,263 | 19,110 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,173 | 4,874 | +54% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 17,457 | 11,648 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,384 | 3,384 | 0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 16,107 | 10,716 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,929 | 2,937 | +0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 18,728 | 14,154 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,387 | 3,893 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 13,450 | 10,841 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,411 | 2,956 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 12,458 | 7,727 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,094 | 2,565 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 15,585 | 9,202 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,858 | 2,904 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 10,610 | 9,258 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,795 | 2,835 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 15,836 | 10,332 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,794 | 3,129 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 19,654 | 9,401 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,346 | 2,724 | -19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 12,669 | 12,573 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,345 | 3,447 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 14,073 | 13,959 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,530 | 3,425 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 14,277 | 9,585 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,568 | 2,879 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 12,084 | 7,719 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,101 | 2,511 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 11,366 | 12,832 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,076 | 3,509 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 12,819 | 7,101 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,451 | 2,468 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 12,655 | 12,386 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,411 | 3,215 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 22,847 | 12,230 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,890 | 3,379 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 6,200 | 16,315 | +163% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,113 | 4,162 | +274% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | 16,514 | 26,709 | +62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,293 | 6,660 | +102% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→fail | 3,375 | 6,503 | +93% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 712 | 2,437 | +242% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.