Menu

Individual skill

evidence-level-ranker

0upvotes

Ranks papers by evidence family, methodological quality tier, validation depth, and claim discipline; assigns anchor, context-setting, mechanistic support, or caution citation roles; prevents prestige-based or design-label-based ranking errors.

awesome-med-research-skills/Evidence Insight/evidence-level-ranker/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 686e09dfdb45d9fa1a08664f06bb93769b3c9d91

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
2,043
Repository last updated
Sep 17, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt
> **Source**: [https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills](https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills)

# Evidence Level Ranker | 证据等级排序器

## Task

Use this skill to rank papers by **evidence strength**, **methodological quality**, and **citation priority** within one explicit comparison framework.

This skill should identify what kind of evidence each paper provides, how much methodological trust it deserves, how much validation or corroboration it contains, and whether it should be treated as a **high-priority anchor citation**, **context-setting citation**, **mechanistic support citation**, or **low-priority / caution citation**.

This skill must not equate study design labels with true evidentiary value automatically. A meta-analysis is not automatically decisive, an RCT is not automatically well-conducted, a cohort is not automatically weak, and a mechanism study is not automatically non-informative. The skill must rank literature based on the combination of **design family, execution quality, validation depth, bias control, and claim discipline**.

This skill is especially useful when the user needs to:
- prioritize citations for a manuscript, review, protocol, or slide deck;
- compare reviews, observational studies, interventional studies, mechanism papers, omics studies, and validation studies in one framework;
Back to top