Produces a structured, plain-language briefing on the state of scientific research for a given topic, summarizing what is established, what is contested, and what remains unknown.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:scientific-literature-briefThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Produces a structured, plain-language briefing on the state of scientific research for a given topic — summarising what is established, what is contested, and what remains unknown.
Produces a structured, plain-language briefing on the state of scientific research for a given topic — summarising what is established, what is contested, and what remains unknown.
Required: The specific topic or question you are researching (e.g. "the health effects of ultra-processed foods", "microplastics in human blood", "long COVID cognitive symptoms").
Optional:
600–900 words. Structured with four labelled sections: What We Know, What Is Disputed, What We Don't Know Yet, and Reporting Watch-outs. Plain English throughout — no jargon without explanation. Written for an intelligent non-specialist. Formal but accessible register. No citations in the body text; sources described by type (e.g. "a large longitudinal cohort study", "a meta-analysis of 40 trials") rather than by author or institution.
Topic: the relationship between sleep duration and cardiovascular disease risk.
Angle: investigating whether recent public health advice to "get eight hours" is backed by solid evidence, or whether it is more complicated than the messaging suggests.
Audience: readers of a national health supplement.
Scientific Literature Brief: Sleep Duration and Cardiovascular Disease Risk
What We Know
A substantial body of research links both short sleep (typically defined as fewer than six hours per night) and long sleep (more than nine hours) with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack, stroke, and heart failure. This U-shaped relationship — where both extremes are associated with worse outcomes than the middle — has been replicated across dozens of studies, including large population surveys tracking hundreds of thousands of people over years.
Short sleep, in particular, is associated with measurable biological changes: elevated blood pressure, higher levels of inflammatory markers, and disrupted regulation of blood sugar. These mechanisms are reasonably well-understood and give researchers confidence that the sleep-heart link is not simply a statistical artefact.
The headline figure of "seven to eight hours" as a target for most adults reflects this research and is a reasonable summary of where population-level data points.
What Is Disputed
The relationship is considerably more complicated than a single number suggests, and researchers actively disagree on several fronts.
Does sleep duration cause cardiovascular problems, or are both caused by something else? Many of the studies are observational — they track people's habits over time but cannot prove that short sleep directly causes heart disease. Underlying conditions such as sleep apnoea, chronic stress, depression, or shift work may independently drive both poor sleep and cardiovascular risk, making it difficult to isolate sleep itself as the cause.
Is eight hours right for everyone? There is growing evidence that sleep need varies meaningfully by genetics, age, and sex. Some researchers argue that a population-level recommendation papers over genuine individual variation and may lead people with naturally shorter sleep patterns to misinterpret their situation as a health risk.
What about long sleep? The association between sleeping nine or more hours and poor cardiovascular outcomes is well-documented, but its interpretation is contested. Many researchers believe long sleep is largely a symptom of underlying illness rather than a cause — people who are already unwell tend to sleep more. This makes it harder to treat long sleep as an independent risk factor in the same way as short sleep.
What We Don't Know Yet
It remains unclear whether deliberately extending sleep — through behaviour change or intervention — actually reduces cardiovascular risk in people who currently sleep less than six hours. Most studies measure sleep as it naturally occurs; few have tested whether improving sleep quality or duration produces measurable heart health benefits over time.
The role of sleep quality versus sleep quantity is also under-researched. Two people who both report seven hours may have very different biological outcomes depending on how fragmented or restorative that sleep is — but large studies have historically measured duration because it is easy to self-report, not because it is the most meaningful metric.
Reporting Watch-outs
The "eight hours" figure is widely cited but is a population average, not a prescription. Stories that present it as a universal target risk alarming readers whose natural sleep pattern is shorter, and may give false reassurance to people who hit the number but sleep poorly.
Distinguish between association and causation in any findings you quote. Most cardiovascular sleep research cannot establish direct causation, and headline writers frequently overstate this.
Be alert to studies funded by sleep technology companies or wellness product manufacturers — this sector has commercial interests in amplifying sleep anxiety. Check funding disclosures before citing industry-adjacent research.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsAssesses scientific consensus on a topic, distinguishing established, debated, and fringe claims to help reporters avoid false balance.
Runs a 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. Supports full research, quick brief, paper review, lit review, fact-check, Socratic dialogue, and systematic review with meta-analysis.
Runs a 13-agent deep research pipeline for rigorous academic work across 7 modes including systematic review with meta-analysis, fact-checking, and Socratic guided dialogue.