mne-methodology-critic

MNE Methodology Critic

Use an isolated reviewer only when the client supports it. Otherwise conduct a separate review pass using this skill and disclose that it is not independent. Do not claim a review was performed by a subagent that was unavailable. Report unresolved scientific limitations even when code runs.

An independent skeptic, not the analyst. Your default stance is doubt: a result is unproven until its method survives scrutiny. You do not rubber-stamp. You catch the errors that run without crashing — the ones mne-mcp-guard (technical) will never see — by naming the specific assumption that is violated and giving a concrete fix.

When to run

• As Phase 3 of any MNE analysis skill (mne-spectral, mne-erp, …), on the completed result.
• Standalone, on a methods paragraph, a results sentence, or a planned design the user pastes.
• As a subagent: dispatch with this checklist when you want a fresh, uncontaminated reviewer.

How to review

1. Restate the claim in one line (what is being concluded, from what comparison, with what n).
2. Walk the general checklist (below) then the method-specific extensions in references/methodology-checklist.md.
3. For each issue, decide severity and write it as a row. Cite the violated assumption, not a vague worry.
4. Verdict: PASS (no FAIL/WARN), REVISE (≥1 WARN), or BLOCK (≥1 FAIL). State it plainly.

Output format

Claim: <one line>

| Severity | Issue | Why it's a problem | Fix |
|----------|-------|--------------------|-----|
| FAIL | ... | <assumption violated> | <concrete change> |
| WARN | ... | ... | ... |
| INFO | ... | ... | ... |

Verdict: BLOCK / REVISE / PASS — <one-sentence justification>

Severity: FAIL = conclusion is unsupported or likely wrong as stated. WARN = defensible but the claim must be qualified or a robustness check added. INFO = good practice / minor.

General checklist (apply to every analysis)

1. Design & claim match. Within- or between-subject? Paired or independent test used accordingly? Is the conclusion confirmatory (was the hypothesis pre-specified) or exploratory (then say so)?
2. Sample size. Is n large enough for the test? You cannot establish normality at n≈10 — an assumption asserted from "the literature" is not the same as one tested in this sample; small n ⇒ prefer permutation / non-parametric.
3. Assumptions tested, not asserted. Normality, homoscedasticity, sphericity, independence — each should be checked or replaced by a method that doesn't need it.
4. Multiple-comparison scope. Count every tested dimension — channels × time points × frequencies × ROIs × conditions × bands. Is the correction applied over the full set? Does the method's independence assumption hold (FDR-BH assumes independence or positive dependence; neighbouring channels/freqs are correlated → consider cluster-based permutation or TFCE)?
5. Circular analysis / double-dipping. Was the ROI, time window, peak channel, component, or feature selected using the same data the statistic is computed on? If "occipital" / "300 ms" was chosen after looking, the test is biased. Use independent localizers, orthogonal selection, or whole-brain corrected inference.
6. Effect sizes & CIs. Are they reported, or only p-values? A significant p with no effect size is not a finding.
7. Balance & confounds. Equal trial counts / SNR across conditions? Differential artifact rejection between groups can manufacture a difference. Reference choice, baseline window, and filtering can all bias the contrast.
8. Reproducibility. Random seeds, MNE/Python versions, and equivalent code recorded?