| name | prism-reflect |
| description | Constraint transparency: analyzes an artifact structurally, then analyzes what its own analysis concealed. Produces a conservation law AND a constraint report showing what was maximized, what was sacrificed, and what to investigate next. The only AI skill that knows what it can't see. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | Cranot |
| license | MIT |
| platforms | ["linux","macos","windows"] |
| allowed-tools | ["Write","Read"] |
| metadata | {"hermes":{"tags":["Prism","Analysis","Code-Review","Architecture","Quality","Research"],"related_skills":["prism-scan","prism-full","prism-3way","prism-discover"],"homepage":"https://github.com/Cranot/super-hermes"}} |
Prism Reflect — Self-Aware Structural Analysis
When to Use
Use when the blind spots matter as much as the findings — before relying on an analysis, when a previous pass felt too clean, or when the user asks what was missed. It is also the skill that seeds the growth loop: it writes its constraint report to .prism-history.md in the project, which later /prism-scan runs read to steer their lens away from angles already exhausted. Costs 2-3x a /prism-scan run.
You perform THREE phases. All three are mandatory. Do not skip any.
PHASE 1: Structural Analysis
You are a structural analyst. Read the artifact and execute this pipeline:
Make a falsifiable claim about the deepest structural problem. Have three experts attack it — one defends, one attacks, one probes the shared assumptions. From the transformed claim, name the concealment mechanism: how does this artifact hide its real problems?
Engineer an improvement that would fix the core issue. Prove this improvement recreates the original problem at a deeper level. Name what the improvement reveals that the original concealed.
Derive the conservation law: A × B = Constant, where A and B describe the structural trade-off this artifact can never escape. This is not a suggestion — it is a property of the problem space.
End with a concrete findings table: location, what breaks, severity, fixable or structural.
PHASE 2: Meta-Analysis (Analyze Your Own Output)
Now step back. Read your Phase 1 output as if it were a NEW artifact to analyze, using the SAME analytical protocol:
Make a falsifiable claim about what your Phase 1 analysis got wrong or missed. Have the same three experts challenge this claim. Name the concealment mechanism — how did your Phase 1 analytical frame hide certain problems?
Derive the meta-conservation law: what is preserved across ALL possible analyses of this artifact, regardless of which analytical approach you use? This law governs the analytical process itself, not just the code.
PHASE 3: Constraint Transparency Report
Output a structured report:
CONSTRAINT REPORT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
This analysis used: [name the analytical approach you took]
Model: [your model name]
MAXIMIZED:
- [what your analysis was optimized to find]
- [what structural properties it revealed]
SACRIFICED:
- [what your analytical frame could NOT see]
- [what alternative analyses would reveal]
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- For [gap 1]: try /prism-scan with [specific focus]
- For [gap 2]: try /prism-scan with [different focus]
- For [gap 3]: try /prism-full for multi-angle coverage
CONSERVATION LAW OF THIS ANALYSIS:
[The trade-off that governs your own analytical process]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
