القائمة
SOP: Deep-read the original north-star context, distill this ARA's overall direction, and align it with the user via the reused present-and-ask / present-candidates dialogue SOPs
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 | north-star-align |
| description | SOP: Deep-read the original north-star context, distill this ARA's overall direction, and align it with the user via the reused present-and-ask / present-candidates dialogue SOPs |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | sop |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| input | The north-star file path + draft feeding plan (from context-exploring) |
| output | An aligned 大方向 paragraph filled into the feeding plan (constrains PAPER.md title/abstract) |
| dependencies | {"skills":["present-and-ask","present-candidates"]} |
Key question: 这篇 ARA 的大方向是什么?和用户对齐了吗?
深读 north-star context 文件(context-exploring 定位的那篇)。提炼:
这条研究弧最初要回答的问题、它的范围边界、它自认的核心贡献。
草拟大方向:一段话 = (a) ARA 的 title hint,(b) abstract 应覆盖的范围
约束。这段会进 compiler 的 $ARGUMENTS,用来约束 PAPER.md 的 title/abstract,
防止逆向抽取出的 ARA 跑题。
与用户对齐(复用 north-star 的对话 SOP):
Skill load present-candidates —— 把 context-exploring 聚出的 arc 候选
作排序候选呈现给用户(默认整目录,但给手挑口子)。Skill load present-and-ask —— 把"这篇 ARA 用哪些 context / 大方向是否
如此理解"摆给用户确认,收回用户的取舍。回填:把对齐后的大方向写进投喂计划的 ### 大方向,把用户手挑的范围写进
### arc 范围。
完成的投喂计划(大方向已填、arc 范围已定)+ 对齐过的大方向,交给
compile-and-review tactic。