القائمة
Comprehensive scenario analysis report synthesizing all scenario work
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 | scenario-synthesis |
| description | Comprehensive scenario analysis report synthesizing all scenario work |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | experiment-execution |
| type | sop |
| execution | subagent |
| prompt | ./prompt.md |
| input | all scenario narratives, impact assessments, robustness scores, pivot triggers |
| output | comprehensive scenario portfolio report with strategic recommendations |
| dependencies | {"sops":["context-checkpoint","context-init","spawn-agent"]} |
Compile all scenario analysis outputs into a comprehensive report with strategic recommendations, contingency plans, and monitoring framework.
Subagent — spawned via subagent-spawning/spawn-agent skill.
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| context-checkpoint | Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Each append MUST contain >=500 lines of markdown covering both process and results. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |
| context-init | Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |
| spawn-agent | Spawn a customized CC subagent with full MCP tool access. Used by SOPs that declare execution: subagent. |
