Menu
Occam's Razor (William of Ockham): among competing explanations, prefer the one with fewest assumptions.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Canonical b00t reviewer capability — adversarial multi-framework code/datum review. Shared across all harnesses (Claude Code, opencode, Hermes, b00t-cli). Loaded via: b00t learn reviewer, or by harness-specific role supplements.
Remove AI-generated artifacts from code. Three-phase certainty-graded cleanup. Use after any AI implementation session or before PR creation.
8-phase agile workflow — strategy→ideate→brainstorm→plan→work→review→compound→pulse. State machine with FOL-guarded transitions, gh-issues backlog, executable just harness. Inspired by everyinc/compound-engineering-plugin.
Australian crypto tax treatment per ATO guidance QC 53725. Crypto assets are CGT assets under ITAA 1997 s 108-5. Each disposal triggers CGT event A1. Covers personal-use exception, trading stock test, and the 50% CGT discount.
Australian R&D Tax Incentive (RDTI) — ITAA 1997 Division 355. Covers eligibility criteria for core and supporting R&D activities, registration with AusIndustry/IP Australia, expenditure categories, offset rates, and the company size threshold test.
Evidence graph construction for tax audit trails. Each Satisfies check emits EvidenceNode structs with Blake3 content hashes. Evidence chains are tamper-evident and link legislative citations to factual findings.
| name | ockham |
| type | skill |
| hint | Occam's razor — prefer the simplest explanation that fits the evidence; complexity is a liability |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| tags | ["transferable","occam","ockham","razor","simplicity","parsimony","complexity","explanation","minimal"] |
| tier | sm0l |
| complexity | 2 |
| description | Occam's Razor (William of Ockham): among competing explanations, prefer the one with fewest assumptions. |
Occam's Razor (William of Ockham) states: among competing explanations that fit the evidence equally well, prefer the one with the fewest assumptions. "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In reasoning, if two hypotheses fit the evidence equally well, choose the simpler one. In code, if two implementations are correct, choose the one with fewer moving parts.
The complexity test: "does removing this component break anything?" If no, remove it. In debugging, the simple explanation (misconfiguration, off-by-one, nil pointer) is almost always right. Resist exotic multi-system conspiracy theories when a single mundane cause fits all evidence. Caveat: Occam's razor selects between equally fitted explanations — do not use it to reject a complex truth when the evidence actually requires it.
Apply Occam's Razor whenever choosing between competing explanations, designs, or implementations. Use it to resist over-engineering and speculative abstraction layers added "just in case."
