Menu
Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or supporting sources.
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
Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis.
Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.
Create a cross-source synthesis across multiple source analyses and claims. Use after checking multiple sources or when producing a higher-level, decision-oriented view.
Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis.
Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.
Create a cross-source synthesis across multiple source analyses and claims. Use after checking multiple sources or when producing a higher-level, decision-oriented view.
| name | rc-extract |
| description | Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or supporting sources. |
Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or supporting sources.
$extract <source>
Note: Codex reserves /... for built-in commands. Use $rc-extract instead.
Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or when sources are supporting evidence rather than primary subjects.
claims:
- id: "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"
text: "[Precise claim statement]"
type: "[F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X]"
domain: "[DOMAIN]"
evidence_level: "E[1-6]"
credence: 0.XX
source_ids: ["[source-id]"]
| Type | Symbol | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | [F] | Empirically verified, consensus reality |
| Theory | [T] | Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support |
| Hypothesis | [H] | Testable proposition, awaiting evidence |
| Prediction | [P] | Future-oriented claim with specified conditions |
| Assumption | [A] | Underlying premise (stated or unstated) |
| Counterfactual | [C] | Alternative scenario for comparison |
| Speculation | [S] | Unfalsifiable or untestable claim |
| Contradiction | [X] | Identified logical inconsistency |
Use this hierarchy to rate strength of evidential support for claims.
| Level | Strength | Description | Credence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Strong Empirical | Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments | 0.9-1.0 |
| E2 | Moderate Empirical | Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics | 0.6-0.8 |
| E3 | Strong Theoretical | Expert consensus, working papers, preprints | 0.5-0.7 |
| E4 | Weak Theoretical | Industry reports, credible journalism | 0.3-0.5 |
| E5 | Opinion/Forecast | Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion | 0.2-0.4 |
| E6 | Unsupported | Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims | 0.0-0.2 |
| Code | Description |
|---|---|
| TECH | Technology, AI capabilities, tech trajectories |
| LABOR | Employment, automation, human work |
| ECON | Value theory, pricing, distribution, ownership |
| GOV | Governance, policy, regulation |
| SOC | Social structures, culture, behavior |
| RESOURCE | Scarcity, abundance, allocation |
| TRANS | Transition dynamics, pathways |
| GEO | International relations, state competition |
| INST | Institutions, organizations |
| RISK | Risk assessment, failure modes |
| META | Claims about the framework/analysis itself |
Analysis Depth: quick in the analysis file$check --continue$check$rc-analyze