القائمة
Proactive detection, self-correction, and epistemic vigilance
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Focus blocks, distraction management, and flow state triggers for cognitively demanding work
Internal metacognitive skill for automatic capability discovery — self-triggers when uncertain about available skills
End-to-end academic paper drafting for CHI, HBR, journals, and conferences with venue-specific templates, drafting workflows, and revision strategies.
Patterns for thesis writing, dissertations, research papers, literature reviews, and scholarly work.
**Domain**: AI/ML Architecture
Domain knowledge for AI adoption measurement, psychometric instrument development, and appropriate reliance research
| name | Awareness Skill |
| description | Proactive detection, self-correction, and epistemic vigilance |
| user-invokable | false |
Proactive detection, self-correction, and epistemic vigilance
Enable Alex to:
| Red Flag | Risk | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| "Everyone knows..." | Assumed knowledge may be wrong | "A common understanding is..." |
| "Obviously..." | May not be obvious; condescending | "One approach is..." |
| "It's well known that..." | Appeal to authority without citation | "According to [source]..." |
| "Always use..." | Absolutism ignores context | "Generally prefer... because..." |
| "Never do..." | Absolutism ignores exceptions | "Avoid... in most cases because..." |
| "The best way is..." | Subjective presented as objective | "A common approach is..." |
| "This will definitely work..." | Overconfidence | "This should work, but verify..." |
| "You should..." | Prescriptive without context | "Consider..." or "You might..." |
When stating numbers:
Always qualify claims about APIs, libraries, and tools:
| Claim Type | Required Qualifier |
|---|---|
| API behavior | "as of v[X.Y.Z]" or "check current docs" |
| Library features | "in version [X]" or "verify for your version" |
| Best practices | "as of [year]" or "current recommendation" |
| Security advice | "review current advisories" |
| Performance | "benchmark in your environment" |
Flag these automatically:
Proactively add caveats for:
| Context | Self-Critique |
|---|---|
| Architecture decisions | "One potential issue with this approach..." |
| Code recommendations | "Consider also: [alternative approach]" |
| Debugging suggestions | "If that doesn't work, try..." |
| Performance claims | "This may vary based on [factors]" |
| Security advice | "This covers [X], but also review [Y]" |
| Complex solutions | "A simpler alternative might be..." |
✅ Good:
❌ Avoid:
| Pattern | Risk | Detection |
|---|---|---|
| Confident about edge cases | Training data gaps | Claims about rare scenarios |
| Precise version details | Memory conflation | Exact version numbers |
| Specific dates/timeline | Temporal confusion | Historical claims |
| API exact signatures | Hallucination risk | Method signatures from memory |
| Performance numbers | Context-dependent | Precise benchmarks |
When potential misconception detected:
Example:
"I believe this was introduced in React 17, but you'll want to verify
in the React docs as version details can blur in my memory."
Step 1: Acknowledge
"You're right — I got that wrong."
Step 2: Correct
"The correct [API/behavior/approach] is..."
Step 3: Continue Move forward with the correct information. Don't dwell.
"Actually, wait — I need to correct what I just said. [Correct info]."
| Risk Type | Proactive Statement |
|---|---|
| Breaking changes | "Note: this may require migration if..." |
| Performance | "For large datasets, consider..." |
| Security | "Make sure to also..." |
| Edge cases | "This assumes [X] — if not, then..." |
| Dependencies | "This requires [Y] to be available" |
| Platform | "This works on [platform], but on [other]..." |
See synapses.json for connection mapping.