Agent skill

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder

by NeuroAIHub in NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

Domain-validated guidance for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models with Stan/PyMC: prior specification, model structure, MCMC diagnostics, and posterior predictive checks

AGPL-3.0Auto-check passedData & Analytics

Install Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder

skills CLI
$ npx skills add NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot --skill bayesian-cognitive-model-builder -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot bayesian-cognitive-model-builder --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/packages/skills/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder .claude/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
bayesian-cognitive-model-builder
GitHub stars
1.1k
Token cost
~5.6k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,741 words
Files
3 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
59
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
AGPL-3.0

At a glance

Domain-validated guidance for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models with Stan/PyMC: prior specification, model structure, MCMC diagnostics, and posterior predictive checks

  • Works in 8 steps: Do You Have Grouped Data? → Choose the Pooling Level → Centered vs. Non-Centered Parameterization → …
  • Tasks that involve Statistics
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, When to Use This Skill, When NOT to Use This Skill and Research Planning Protocol, plus 7 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder is an agent skill from NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot. Domain-validated guidance for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models with Stan/PyMC: prior specification, model structure, MCMC diagnostics, and posterior predictive checks

Its SKILL.md is about 5.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 3 other files, including reference files (for example `references/diagnostics-checklist.md` and `references/prior-selection-guide.md`).

It sits in Data & Analytics, covering Statistics. It works with PyMC. The repository describes itself as: BrainPilot: Automating Brain Discovery with Agentic Research. The licence is AGPL-3.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Statistics

Example prompts

  • “/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder”

Workflow steps

8 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Do You Have Grouped Data?
  2. Choose the Pooling Level
  3. Centered vs. Non-Centered Parameterization
  4. Non-Identifiability
  5. Prior Sensitivity
  6. Label Switching
  7. Improper Posterior Geometry
  8. Insufficient Trials Per Participant

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 93f6855. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Links to these hosts (documentation or services it may open):

    • github.com

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder loads about 5.6k tokens when it runs, and up to ~15k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 54 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,741 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~54
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.6k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~15k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot at commit 93f6855, republished under its AGPL-3.0 licence (© NeuroAIHub). 2,741 words, ~5,575 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 2 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
bayesian-cognitive-model-builder
description
Domain-validated guidance for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models with Stan/PyMC: prior specification, model structure, MCMC diagnostics, and posterior predictive checks
domain
computational-cognitive-modeling
version
1.0.0
papers
Gelman et al., 2013, Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014, Kruschke, 2015, Schad et al., 2021, Vehtari et al., 2017, Vehtari et al., 2021
dependencies.required
research-literacy
dependencies.recommended
drift-diffusion-model, signal-detection-analysis
review_status
ai-generated

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder

Purpose

This skill encodes expert knowledge for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models using probabilistic programming languages (Stan, PyMC). It addresses the modeling decisions that require domain expertise beyond knowing Stan/PyMC syntax: how to choose priors that respect cognitive constraints, when to use hierarchical structure, how to diagnose MCMC pathologies, and how to evaluate model adequacy through posterior predictive checks.

A competent programmer without cognitive modeling training would get wrong: which prior families are appropriate for cognitive parameters (e.g., RT must be positive, learning rates bounded in [0,1]), when partial pooling outperforms complete pooling or no pooling, how to detect non-identifiability in cognitive models, and what constitutes adequate MCMC convergence for publishable results.

When to Use This Skill

  • Building a generative model of a cognitive process (decision-making, learning, memory, perception) where parameters have psychological interpretations
  • Estimating individual differences in cognitive parameters while borrowing strength across participants (hierarchical/multilevel models)
  • Working with small samples or sparse data per participant where regularization through priors prevents overfitting
  • Parameter uncertainty matters for your scientific conclusions (credible intervals, not just point estimates)
  • Comparing competing cognitive models via information criteria (LOO-CV, WAIC) or Bayes factors
  • Fitting established cognitive models (DDM, signal detection, reinforcement learning, multinomial processing trees) in a Bayesian framework

When NOT to Use This Skill

  • If your model has a closed-form MLE and you have large, balanced samples, frequentist estimation may be simpler and adequate
  • For purely predictive models where parameter interpretability is irrelevant (consider machine learning approaches)
  • If you need a general-purpose Bayesian regression model without cognitive process parameters (see cogsci-statistics skill)
  • For EEG/fMRI analysis pipelines without explicit cognitive models (see erp-analysis or fmri-glm-analysis-guide skills)

Research Planning Protocol

Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:

  1. State the research question -- What cognitive mechanism is this model capturing?
  2. Justify the method choice -- Why Bayesian (not MLE, not frequentist)? What alternatives were considered?
  3. Declare expected outcomes -- What parameter patterns would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
  4. Note assumptions and limitations -- What does this model assume about the cognitive process?
  5. Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation before proceeding.

For detailed methodology guidance, see the research-literacy skill.

⚠️ Verification Notice

This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please open an issue.

Model Structure Decision Tree

Choosing the right level of pooling is a fundamental modeling decision that a non-specialist routinely gets wrong.

Step 1: Do You Have Grouped Data?

If your data has a natural grouping structure (e.g., multiple trials per participant, participants within conditions), you need to decide on a pooling strategy. If not, fit a single model.

Step 2: Choose the Pooling Level
StrategyStructureWhen AppropriateRisk
Complete poolingOne set of parameters for all participantsLarge homogeneous groups, nuisance individual differencesIgnores meaningful individual variation; biased group estimates if heterogeneity exists (Gelman et al., 2013, Ch. 5)
No poolingSeparate parameters per participantMany trials per participant (>200), individual-level inference is the goalNoisy estimates for participants with few trials; no borrowing of strength (Gelman et al., 2013, Ch. 5)
Partial pooling (hierarchical)Individual parameters drawn from group distributionDefault choice for cognitive modeling; few-to-moderate trials per participant; individual differences are scientifically meaningfulRequires MCMC; potential convergence issues with centered parameterization (Gelman et al., 2013, Ch. 5)

Critical domain knowledge: Hierarchical (partial pooling) models should be the default in cognitive science. They automatically regularize extreme individual estimates toward the group mean -- a property called "shrinkage" -- which is especially valuable with typical cognitive science sample sizes of 20-40 participants with 50-200 trials each (Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014, Ch. 8).

Step 3: Centered vs. Non-Centered Parameterization

For hierarchical models, the parameterization choice affects MCMC efficiency:

  • Centered parameterization: theta_j ~ Normal(mu, sigma). Use when there are many observations per group (>100 trials per participant) and the data are informative relative to the prior (Betancourt & Girolami, 2015).
  • Non-centered parameterization: theta_j = mu + sigma * eta_j where eta_j ~ Normal(0, 1). Use when there are few observations per group, the group-level variance is small, or you encounter divergent transitions with centered parameterization (Betancourt & Girolami, 2015; Stan User's Guide, Section 1.13).

When in doubt, use non-centered parameterization. It is more robust across a wider range of data configurations and is the Stan Development Team's default recommendation.

Prior Selection Principles

General Philosophy

Use weakly informative priors that encode known constraints without dominating the likelihood. The goal is to rule out impossible or implausible parameter values while remaining agnostic about the precise value (Gelman et al., 2008; Gelman et al., 2013, Ch. 2).

Domain-critical principle: Cognitive parameters have natural constraints that generic "flat" or "diffuse" priors violate. Reaction times cannot be negative. Probabilities must lie in [0,1]. Learning rates are bounded. Firing rates are non-negative. Encoding these constraints in the prior is not "being subjective" -- it is encoding physical and psychological reality (Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014, Ch. 4).

Prior Families for Common Cognitive Parameter Types
Parameter TypeRecommended PriorRationaleSource
Location (unbounded)Normal(0, sd) or Student-t(3, 0, sd)Weakly informative; heavier tails with Student-t for robustnessGelman et al., 2008
Scale / varianceHalf-Normal(0, sd) or Half-Cauchy(0, sd)Positive-only; Half-Cauchy allows heavier tails for group-level SDsGelman, 2006; Polson & Scott, 2012
Probability (0 to 1)Beta(a, b)Natural conjugate for binomial; Beta(1,1) = Uniform; Beta(2,2) = weakly informative centered at 0.5Kruschke, 2015, Ch. 6
Rate (0 to 1)Beta(1.1, 1.1) or logit-NormalGently regularizes away from boundariesGelman et al., 2013, Ch. 2
Positive continuousGamma(shape, rate) or Lognormal(mu, sigma)For RT, non-decision time, threshold parametersLee & Wagenmakers, 2014, Ch. 4
Correlation matrixLKJ(eta)eta=1: uniform over matrices; eta=2: weakly informative (Stan default recommendation)Lewandowski et al., 2009; Stan User's Guide
Simplex (sums to 1)Dirichlet(alpha)alpha=1: uniform on simplex; alpha>1: concentrates toward centerGelman et al., 2013, Ch. 2

For detailed cognitive-domain-specific prior tables, see references/prior-selection-guide.md.

Prior Predictive Checking

Always run a prior predictive check before fitting to data (Schad et al., 2021; Gabry et al., 2019):

  1. Sample parameters from your priors (no data)
  2. Simulate data from the model using those parameters
  3. Check: Does the simulated data look plausible for the domain?
  • If the prior predicts impossible RTs (e.g., negative, or > 60 seconds), the prior is too diffuse
  • If the prior predicts accuracy always near 50% or always near 100%, reconsider
  1. Iterate on priors until prior predictive distributions cover plausible data ranges without including absurd values

Common Cognitive Models in Bayesian Framework

Drift-Diffusion Model (DDM / HDDM)
  • Key parameters: drift rate (v), boundary separation (a), non-decision time (t), starting point bias (z)
  • Bayesian implementation: HDDM package (Wiecki et al., 2013) uses informative priors from empirical meta-analysis (Matzke & Wagenmakers, 2009)
  • Typical priors: See references/prior-selection-guide.md for parameter-specific recommendations
  • Critical note: Within-trial noise (s) is a scaling parameter fixed by convention at 0.1 (Ratcliff, 1978) or 1.0 (Navarro & Fuss, 2009). All other parameter ranges depend on this choice.
  • Also see the drift-diffusion-model skill for detailed DDM guidance
Signal Detection Theory (SDT)
  • Key parameters: sensitivity (d'), criterion (c)
  • Priors for d': Normal(0, 2) is weakly informative; typical empirical values range 0 to 4 (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005)
  • Priors for c: Normal(0, 1.5) centered at no bias; typical range -2 to 2 (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005)
  • Hierarchical structure: Individual d' and c drawn from group distributions (Rouder & Lu, 2005)
  • Also see the signal-detection-analysis skill
Multinomial Processing Trees (MPT)
  • Key parameters: Processing probabilities (all in [0,1])
  • Priors: Beta(1,1) for non-informative or Beta(a,b) with shape informed by prior studies (Klauer, 2010)
  • Hierarchical extension: Latent-trait MPT with probit-transformed parameters drawn from multivariate normal (Klauer, 2010)
Item Response Theory (IRT)
  • Key parameters: Ability (theta), difficulty (b), discrimination (a)
  • Priors: theta ~ Normal(0,1) by convention; b ~ Normal(0, 2); a ~ Lognormal(0, 0.5) to enforce positivity (de Boeck & Wilson, 2004)
  • Cognitive application: Modeling learning, cognitive ability, or item difficulty in memory/attention tasks
Reinforcement Learning (RL)
  • Key parameters: Learning rate (alpha in [0,1]), inverse temperature (beta > 0), decay, perseveration
  • Priors for alpha: Beta(1.1, 1.1) weakly informative on [0,1] (Daw, 2011; Gershman, 2016)
  • Priors for beta (inverse temperature): Gamma(2, 1) or Lognormal(0, 1) constraining to positive values; typical range 0.5 to 20 (Daw, 2011)
  • Critical note: Learning rate and inverse temperature are often poorly identifiable in standard Q-learning; consider reparameterization or strong priors (Daw, 2011; Wilson & Collins, 2019)

MCMC Diagnostics

Every Bayesian analysis requires thorough convergence diagnostics. Never report posterior summaries without first verifying convergence. See references/diagnostics-checklist.md for the full step-by-step protocol.

Minimum Convergence Criteria
DiagnosticThresholdInterpretationSource
R-hat (split R-hat)< 1.01Between-chain vs. within-chain variance; values > 1.01 indicate non-convergenceVehtari et al., 2021
Bulk-ESS> 400 (100 per chain with 4 chains)Effective independent draws for posterior mean/median estimationVehtari et al., 2021
Tail-ESS> 400Effective draws for tail quantiles (credible intervals)Vehtari et al., 2021
Divergent transitions0Any divergences indicate the sampler failed to explore the posterior faithfullyBetancourt, 2017
E-BFMI> 0.3Energy Bayesian Fraction of Missing Information; low values indicate poor explorationBetancourt, 2017
Tree depth saturationRare (<1% of transitions)Hitting maximum tree depth suggests difficult geometryStan User's Guide

Critical domain knowledge: The older threshold of R-hat < 1.1 is outdated. Vehtari et al. (2021) demonstrated that the traditional R-hat can miss convergence failures. Use the rank-normalized split R-hat with a threshold of 1.01 and always report both bulk-ESS and tail-ESS.

When Diagnostics Fail

See references/diagnostics-checklist.md for remediation steps. The most common fixes in cognitive modeling:

  1. Divergent transitions --> Switch to non-centered parameterization; increase adapt_delta to 0.95-0.99
  2. Low ESS --> Run longer chains; check for multimodality; reparameterize
  3. High R-hat --> Run more iterations; check for label switching in mixture models
  4. E-BFMI warning --> Reparameterize; consider reducing model complexity

Model Comparison

Show full SKILL.md (1,140 more words)Show less
Information Criteria (Preferred for Most Applications)
MethodWhen to UseImplementationSource
PSIS-LOO-CVDefault choice for comparing predictive accuracy; more robust than WAIC with weak priors or influential observationsloo package (R), az.loo (Python/ArviZ)Vehtari et al., 2017
WAICAsymptotically equivalent to LOO; acceptable when PSIS diagnostics are clean (all Pareto k < 0.7)loo package (R), az.waic (Python/ArviZ)Watanabe, 2010; Vehtari et al., 2017
Bayes factorsWhen testing a precise null hypothesis (e.g., parameter = 0); sensitive to prior specificationBridge sampling, Savage-Dickey density ratioKass & Raftery, 1995; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014, Ch. 7

Critical domain knowledge: Prefer LOO-CV over WAIC for cognitive models. Vehtari et al. (2017) showed that PSIS-LOO is more robust in the finite-sample case, especially with weak priors or influential observations common in cognitive data. Always check the Pareto k diagnostic: values > 0.7 indicate unreliable LOO estimates for those observations.

Interpreting Bayes Factors
Bayes Factor (BF10)Evidence CategorySource
1 - 3Anecdotal / not worth more than a bare mentionJeffreys, 1961; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014
3 - 10Moderate evidenceJeffreys, 1961; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014
10 - 30Strong evidenceJeffreys, 1961; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014
30 - 100Very strong evidenceJeffreys, 1961; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014
> 100Extreme / decisive evidenceJeffreys, 1961; Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014

Caution: Bayes factors are highly sensitive to prior specification. A diffuse prior on the alternative hypothesis inflates evidence for the null (the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox). Always conduct a prior sensitivity analysis when reporting Bayes factors (Schad et al., 2021).

Posterior Predictive Checks

After model comparison, the selected model must demonstrate it can reproduce key features of the observed data:

  1. Simulate data from the posterior predictive distribution (draw parameters from posterior, then generate synthetic data)
  2. Compare summary statistics: mean RT, RT quantiles (0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9), accuracy, conditional accuracy functions
  3. Visual checks: overlay posterior predictive density on observed data; Q-Q plots; residual distributions
  4. Quantitative checks: Posterior predictive p-values for test statistics of interest; values near 0 or 1 indicate misfit (Gelman et al., 2013, Ch. 6)

Domain-specific checks: For RT models, always check the fit to the full RT distribution (not just the mean). Cognitive models derive their power from fitting distributional shape -- a model that matches mean RT but misses the right tail is inadequate (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008).

Common Pitfalls

1. Non-Identifiability

Problem: Two or more parameters trade off so that many parameter combinations yield equivalent likelihoods. Common in RL models (learning rate vs. inverse temperature) and DDM (boundary vs. drift rate with few conditions).

Detection: Pairwise posterior scatter plots show strong correlations or ridges; marginal posteriors are much wider than expected.

Fix: Add conditions that differentially constrain parameters; use informative priors; reparameterize (e.g., the ratio v/a in DDM; Wilson & Collins, 2019).

2. Prior Sensitivity

Problem: Posterior conclusions change substantially when priors are varied within a reasonable range.

Detection: Re-fit with 2-3 alternative prior specifications and compare posteriors (Schad et al., 2021).

Fix: Collect more data; use more informative priors justified by previous literature; report sensitivity analysis in the paper.

3. Label Switching

Problem: In mixture models, MCMC chains swap component labels, creating multimodal marginal posteriors even when the model is well-identified.

Detection: Trace plots show "switching" between modes; R-hat is high even with long chains.

Fix: Impose ordering constraints (e.g., mu_1 < mu_2); use label-invariant summaries; post-hoc relabeling (Stephens, 2000).

4. Improper Posterior Geometry

Problem: Funnel-shaped posterior in hierarchical models where the group SD approaches zero, creating an increasingly narrow funnel that the sampler cannot traverse.

Detection: Divergent transitions concentrated near low group-SD values; non-centered parameterization is the standard fix (Betancourt & Girolami, 2015).

Fix: Non-centered parameterization (see Step 3 in Model Structure Decision Tree above).

5. Insufficient Trials Per Participant

Problem: With too few trials, individual-level parameters are poorly constrained even in hierarchical models.

Guideline: For DDM, minimum 40-60 trials per condition per participant for stable hierarchical estimation (Wiecki et al., 2013; Ratcliff & Childers, 2015). For simpler models (e.g., binomial SDT), 20-30 trials may suffice with hierarchical priors (Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014).

Fix: If data are already collected, rely more heavily on hierarchical shrinkage and report wide credible intervals honestly.

Reporting Checklist

When reporting Bayesian cognitive models in a manuscript:

  1. Model specification: Full generative model with likelihood and all priors (consider a graphical model plate diagram)
  2. Prior justification: Why each prior was chosen; cite sources for domain-informed priors
  3. Prior predictive check: Confirm priors generate plausible data
  4. Software and sampler settings: Package, version, number of chains (minimum 4; Vehtari et al., 2021), warmup iterations, sampling iterations, adapt_delta
  5. Convergence diagnostics: R-hat (< 1.01), bulk-ESS (> 400), tail-ESS (> 400), divergent transitions (0)
  6. Posterior summaries: Means/medians, credible intervals (89% or 95% HDI; Kruschke, 2015, Ch. 12), and full posterior distributions where space allows
  7. Posterior predictive checks: Visual and/or quantitative evidence that the model reproduces key data features
  8. Model comparison (if applicable): LOO-CV/WAIC with standard errors; Bayes factors with prior sensitivity
  9. Sensitivity analysis: At least one alternative prior specification with comparison of results
  10. Code and data availability: Share Stan/PyMC code and (where possible) data for reproducibility

Key References

  • Betancourt, M. (2017). A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv:1701.02434.
  • Betancourt, M., & Girolami, M. (2015). Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for hierarchical models. In Current Trends in Bayesian Methodology with Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  • Daw, N. D. (2011). Trial-by-trial data analysis using computational models. In Decision Making, Affect, and Learning. Oxford University Press.
  • Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M., & Gelman, A. (2019). Visualization in Bayesian workflow. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 182(2), 389-402.
  • Gelman, A. (2006). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Analysis, 1(3), 515-534.
  • Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G., & Su, Y. S. (2008). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1360-1383.
  • Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  • Gershman, S. J. (2016). Empirical priors for reinforcement learning models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 71, 1-6.
  • Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  • Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge University Press.
  • Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., & Vasishth, S. (2021). Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 103-126.
  • Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413-1432.
  • Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B., & Burkner, P. C. (2021). Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R-hat for assessing convergence of MCMC. Bayesian Analysis, 16(2), 667-718.
  • Wiecki, T. V., Sofer, I., & Frank, M. J. (2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7, 14.
  • Wilson, R. C., & Collins, A. G. (2019). Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data. eLife, 8, e49547.

© NeuroAIHub, AGPL-3.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 2 other files (references) in packages/skills/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder of NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/diagnostics-checklist.md
  • references/prior-selection-guide.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 93f6855

Compare with similar skills

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder this skillNeuroAIHub/BrainPilot1.1k—~5.6kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
Statistical Analysisspacering-net/codeg3.9k3 repos~5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Bayesian Workflowbrycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.5k—~3.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PyMC Bayesian Modelingdavila7/claude-code-templates32k11 repos~3.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Bayesian Estimationbrycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.5k—~3.4kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Statistical Analysisjaechang-hits/SciAgent-Skills3711 repos~4.8kAutomated safety check: PassCC-BY-4.0

Similar skills

  • Statistical Analysis

    spacering-net/codeg

    Guided statistical analysis for research data - test selection, assumption checking, effect sizes, power analysis, Bayesian alternatives, and APA-formatted reporting.

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~5k tokens
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • Bayesian Workflow

    brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

    Opinionated Bayesian modeling workflow with PyMC and ArviZ. An agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills.

    4.5k GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated 4 days ago
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • PyMC Bayesian Modeling

    davila7/claude-code-templates

    Builds, fits, checks and compares Bayesian models in PyMC, from priors and NUTS sampling to variational inference, LOO and WAIC comparison, and diagnostics.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 11 repos~3.9k tokens
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • Bayesian Estimation

    brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

    This skill covers Bayesian estimation and inference in quantitative social science.

    4.5k GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated 4 days ago
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • Statistical Analysis

    jaechang-hits/SciAgent-Skills

    Guided statistical analysis: test choice, assumption checks, effect sizes, power, APA reporting.

    371 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~4.8k tokens
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • Pymc Bayesian Modeling

    jaechang-hits/SciAgent-Skills

    Bayesian modeling with PyMC 5: priors, likelihood, NUTS/ADVI sampling, diagnostics (R-hat, ESS), LOO/WAIC comparison, prediction.

    371 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~5.7k tokens
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed

More from NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

All 59 skills in this repo
  • Deeplabcut

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Toolbox for markerless animal pose estimation with DeepLabCut.

    1.1k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Fmriprep

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Preprocess task-based or resting-state fMRI data with fMRIPrep — a robust, BIDS-App preprocessing pipeline built on FSL, ANTs, FreeSurfer, AFNI, and Nilearn.

    1.1k GitHub stars~4.1k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Mne Python Guide

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Domain-validated pipeline guidance for EEG/MEG data analysis using MNE-Python: data loading, preprocessing (filtering, ICA, re-referencing), epoching, ERP/ERF computation, time-frequency…

    1.1k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Netneurotools Guide

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Domain-validated guidance for network neuroscience analysis using netneurotools: datasets, brain network metrics, connectivity consensus, modularity, spatial statistics, null models, and cortical…

    1.1k GitHub stars~2.6k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Nature Figure

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Submission-grade Nature/high-impact journal figure workflow for Python or R.

    1.1k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.3k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Pycortex Guide

    NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot

    Domain-validated guidance for cortical surface visualization and brain surface rendering of fMRI data using pycortex: data types (Volume, Vertex, Dataset), 2D cortical flatmaps, 3D WebGL brain…

    1.1k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Questions about Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder

What does Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder do?

Domain-validated guidance for building hierarchical Bayesian cognitive models with Stan/PyMC: prior specification, model structure, MCMC diagnostics, and posterior predictive checks. Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder is an agent skill from NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot.

When should I use Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder?

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder fits situations like: tasks that involve Statistics.

How do I install Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot --skill bayesian-cognitive-model-builder -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (packages/skills/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder in NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot) into .claude/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder in Codex?

Run `npx skills add NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot --skill bayesian-cognitive-model-builder -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (packages/skills/skills/07_Computational_Modeling/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder in NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot) into .agents/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot --skill bayesian-cognitive-model-builder -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder, .gemini/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder, .github/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder and .opencode/skills/bayesian-cognitive-model-builder in your project.

What does Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder is instructions for the agent only.

Does Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder access the network?

SKILL.md names 1 domain. As links in the text: github.com. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder use?

Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder is published under the AGPL-3.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder use?

About 5.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 22k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 8.9k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder: Statistical Analysis (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Bayesian Workflow (brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills, 4.5k stars), PyMC Bayesian Modeling (davila7/claude-code-templates, 32k stars) and Bayesian Estimation (brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills, 4.5k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Bayesian Cognitive Model Builder?

NeuroAIHub (a GitHub organization) maintains it in NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot, which has 1,062 GitHub stars. The repository holds 59 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 2, 2026.

Source: NeuroAIHub/BrainPilot on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.