القائمة
Shared SOP: General quality-gate check (format completeness, logical consistency)
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill hypothesis-formation-quality-gate-checkيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
عرض SKILL.md
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.
Campaign: Logical extreme and boundary testing via reductio ad absurdum and edge-case analysis. Core question: Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions? Methods: Lakatos 1976, Dutilh Novaes 2016, BVA, Flyvbjerg Critical Case, Popper.
Campaign for mapping argument structures — extract claims, link evidence, assess strength, synthesize positions. Produces argument graphs in the wiki vault.
| name | hypothesis-formation-quality-gate-check |
| description | Shared SOP: General quality-gate check (format completeness, logical consistency) |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | hypothesis-formation |
| type | sop |
| shared | true |
| campaigns | ["gap-prioritization","hypothesis-formulation","research-question"] |
| input | Any deliverable (gap list / hypothesis / RQ) |
| output | Pass/fail + issue list |
| dependencies | {"skills":["subagent-spawning"]} |
General quality-gate check — verify the format completeness and logical consistency of a deliverable.
| Dimension | What is checked | FAIL condition |
|---|---|---|
| Format completeness | Are all required fields present | Missing required fields |
| Logical consistency | Are the parts contradictory | Internal contradiction exists |
| Citation completeness | Are cited sources traceable | Citation cannot be verified |
| Actionability | Is it specific enough | Too abstract to execute |
| Unambiguity | Are there multiple interpretations | Key terms are ambiguous |
Judgment: PASS / FAIL
Issues found: [count]
Issue list:
1. [dimension]: [specific issue] — [correction suggestion]
2. ...
Severity: CRITICAL / MINOR (per issue)