cmpr-completeness-reasoning

name	cmpr - Completeness Reasoning
description	Reason about whether something is complete by checking necessary and sufficient conditions, identifying gaps and redundancies.
output	{"format":"prose"}

CMPR - Completeness Reasoning

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: Define What "Complete" Means

SUBJECT: [what we're assessing for completeness]
DOMAIN: [the context in which completeness is being judged]

COMPLETENESS DEFINITION:
  [explicit statement of what would make this subject complete in this domain]
  SOURCE: [specification | standard | convention | constructed definition]

Completeness is always relative to a definition. A novel is "complete" differently than a checklist. State the standard before measuring against it.

---

Step 2: Check Necessary Conditions

Necessary conditions: things that MUST be present for completeness.

NECESSARY CONDITIONS:
  1. [condition] — MET: [yes | no | partially]
     EVIDENCE: [how you verified]
  2. [condition] — MET: [yes | no | partially]
     EVIDENCE: [verification]
  3. [condition] — MET: [yes | no | partially]
     EVIDENCE: [verification]
  ...

If ANY necessary condition is unmet, the subject is incomplete. No exceptions.

---

Step 3: Check Sufficient Conditions

Sufficient conditions: if ALL of these are met, completeness is guaranteed.

SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS:
  1. [condition] — MET: [yes | no | partially]
     EVIDENCE: [verification]
  2. [condition] — MET: [yes | no | partially]
     EVIDENCE: [verification]
  ...

ALL SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS MET: [yes | no]

The sufficient set may differ from the necessary set. Necessary conditions prevent incompleteness. Sufficient conditions guarantee completeness. The gap between them is where judgment lives.

---

Step 4: Identify What's Missing for Necessity

UNMET NECESSARY CONDITIONS:
  1. [condition] — MISSING: [what specifically is absent]
     IMPACT: [what fails without this]
     FILL DIFFICULTY: [easy | moderate | hard]
  2. [condition] — MISSING: [what's absent]
     IMPACT: [consequence]
     FILL DIFFICULTY: [level]

If no necessary conditions are unmet, state that explicitly and skip to Step 5.

---

Step 5: Identify What's Redundant Beyond Sufficiency

REDUNDANCIES:
  1. [element] — REDUNDANT BECAUSE: [why this exceeds what's needed]
     HARMFUL: [yes | no] — [if yes, how it causes problems]
     KEEP ANYWAY: [yes | no] — [justification]
  2. [element] — REDUNDANT BECAUSE: [reason]
     HARMFUL: [yes | no]
     KEEP ANYWAY: [yes | no]

Redundancy is not always bad. Backup systems are redundant by design. But redundancy that adds confusion, cost, or maintenance burden without value should be flagged.

---

Step 6: Assess Overall Completeness

COMPLETENESS ASSESSMENT
=======================
SUBJECT: [what was assessed]
DEFINITION OF COMPLETE: [the standard used]

NECESSARY CONDITIONS: [X of Y met]
SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS: [X of Y met]

COMPLETENESS: [percentage estimate]
  COMPLETE: all necessary and sufficient conditions met
  NEARLY COMPLETE: all necessary met, some sufficient missing
  INCOMPLETE: necessary conditions unmet
  OVER-COMPLETE: exceeds sufficiency with redundancies

MISSING (must fix):
  1. [unmet necessary condition]
  2. [unmet necessary condition]

MISSING (would improve):
  1. [unmet sufficient condition]

REDUNDANT (consider removing):
  1. [unnecessary element]

VERDICT: [complete | nearly complete | incomplete | over-complete]

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
No completeness definition	Assessing without stating the standard	Define "complete" before checking
Confusing necessary and sufficient	Treating nice-to-haves as requirements	Ask: does it FAIL without this, or just work less well?
Binary thinking	Only "complete" or "incomplete"	Use the spectrum: incomplete, nearly complete, complete, over-complete
Ignoring redundancy	Only looking for gaps, not excess	Over-completeness is a real problem — check for it
Moving goalposts	Changing the completeness definition mid-assessment	Lock the definition in Step 1

---

Integration

• Use with: /gflr to dive deeper into identified gaps
• Use with: /difr to check if comparisons cover all relevant differences
• Use with: /agsk to check if an argument has all needed premises
• Use from: /evaluate when assessing work completeness
• Differs from /gflr: cmpr checks against formal conditions; gflr reasons about what's missing and its impact