القائمة
Top-level orchestrator for the yogsoth-ai research ecosystem. Drives the full research lifecycle from direction crystallization through experiment design.
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
Strategy: Attack an isomorphism claim by demanding an explicit structure-preserving map and trying to break it. Targets any multi-language claim of the form 'X ≅ Y ≅ … across N mathematical languages'. Forces the claim to either earn the word 'isomorphism' or be demoted to 'analogy'. Methods: category theory (functor/natural-iso criteria), model theory, Lakatos monster-barring.
Strategy: Dialectic engine retuned for truth-seeking, not survival. A defender steelmans a claim into its MOST falsifiable form, a critic attacks to refute it, a judge classifies the exchange into BROKEN/CORROBORATED/UNFALSIFIABLE — the judge does NOT pick a winner or score persuasiveness. Methods: Irving debate (repurposed), Toulmin argumentation, Mayo severe testing.
Strategy: Run BEFORE building any validator (sandbox/simulation/benchmark). Builds a non-circularity matrix of theory-claim × validator-assumption to detect when a validator would 'confirm' a theory only because it was built on the theory's own premises. A circular validator's PASS carries zero evidential weight. Methods: Cartwright nomological machines, Winsberg sanctioning-of-simulations, tautology detection.
Strategy: Attack a beautiful unified result on the suspicion that its beauty is the bug. Distinguishes EARNED simplicity (forbids/predicts/subsumes) from DECORATIVE simplicity (re-describes/relabels/accommodates). Directly serves the Occam aesthetic by making it a falsifiable bar, not a vibe. Methods: Sober parsimony-as-evidence, MDL, Meehl risky prediction, accommodation-vs-prediction.
Campaign: Truth-seeking adversarial validation for scientific research artifacts (NOT publication defense). Core question: Where have we fooled ourselves, and is each load-bearing claim even falsifiable? Win-condition is INVERTED from survival/resilience to active refutation. Methods: Popper falsificationism, Lakatos Proofs and Refutations, Mayo severe testing, Platt strong inference.
Strategy: Attack the evidential weight of an 'independent convergence' claim. When N reasoning paths all reach the same conclusion, the confidence boost is real only if the paths were actually independent. Measures shared-prior / shared-blindspot contamination and corrects the over-counted confidence. Methods: Bayesian agreement-as-evidence, correlated-error analysis, jury theorem assumptions.
| name | de-anthropocentric-research-engine |
| description | Top-level orchestrator for the yogsoth-ai research ecosystem. Drives the full research lifecycle from direction crystallization through experiment design. |
| execution | sequential |
| dependencies | {"sops":["executing-specs","research-catalog","writing-specs"]} |
You are the orchestrator of a complete research pipeline. Your job is to guide the user from a vague research interest to a fully executable Research Spec.
Phase 1: North Star Crystallization (mandatory) Phase 2: Research Spec Generation (writing-specs)
Phase 3 (Spec Execution) is invoked separately by the user after reviewing the spec.
If the user's request is a customized workflow that does not follow the standard
North Star → Spec pipeline (e.g., user specifies exact campaigns to run, provides
their own spec, or requests a non-standard combination of research activities),
invoke research-catalog immediately to understand the full capability landscape and
route accordingly.
Before anything else, you must establish a clear research direction.
Assess the user's input:
cold-startwarm-starthot-startHard gate: Do NOT proceed to Phase 2 until you have:
Context protocol:
context-init at the start of crystallizationcontext-checkpoint after crystallization completes (preserve North Star + ResearchBrief)Once the North Star is confirmed, transition to spec generation:
Before invoking writing-specs, invoke research-catalog to load the capability
menu. This ensures the Research Spec leverages the complete arsenal of
available campaigns, strategies, tactics, and SOPs — not just the obvious defaults.
writing-specs strategyresearch-catalog, ask clarifying questions, and produce a Research Specdocs/de-anthropocentric/specs/Your role in Phase 2: Hand off to writing-specs. Do not generate the spec yourself.
After the user reviews and approves the spec, they invoke executing-specs in a new session. This is NOT your responsibility — just inform the user that the next step is to invoke executing-specs with the spec file path.
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| executing-specs | Execute a Research Spec step by step, respecting context protocol, deviation limits, and backtrack rules. Supports multi-session recovery. |
| research-catalog | Capability menu for the research engine. Lists the 10 freely-composable research packages, what each does, when to reach for it, and a pointer to its full skill table. Read this after north-star crystallization to decide which packages to use — no fixed order. Also serves as the skill-index (capability map). |
| writing-specs | Generate a complete, executable Research Spec from North Star + user input. Strategy-level skill that orchestrates questioning, outline, and spec writing. |