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.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Use when source material must be transformed into a compact, evidence-aware model for learning, decisions, or an Obsidian concept note.
metadata
{"version":"8.1.0","updated":"2026-08-18","profile":"one-shot","assumes":"The source material or a source-grounded summary is available.","conflicts_with":"Inventing missing claims, erasing provenance, or presenting hypotheses as facts."}
Cognitive Compile
<skill_contract>
Source-grounded material, original question, learning or decision goal, audience, and destination.
An eight-part evidence-aware mental model separating facts, mechanisms, conflicts, hypotheses, decisions, and action.
Each material claim retains provenance and uncertainty, and one bounded next action answers the original question.
<non_goals>Inventing missing claims, erasing contradictions or provenance, or treating interpretation as source fact.</non_goals>
Compile information into a decision-ready mental model. Compression must preserve provenance, uncertainty, contradiction, and the original question.
Usage Template
Provide: source material, original question, intended decision or learning goal, and preferred destination. Optional: existing wiki concepts to compare.
Workflow
Identify the source boundary, original question, audience, and required fidelity. Label direct source claims, external facts, and analyst inferences before synthesis.
<unknowns_gate>
If the source is inaccessible, truncated, or missing the material needed to answer the question, return INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE. Ask one probe only when its answer changes the compile structure; otherwise proceed with explicit unknowns.
</unknowns_gate>
Produce eight compact sections:
Original question — the problem the material helps answer.
Key facts — source-grounded claims with locators when available.
Concepts and entities — stable terms worth linking.
Patterns — mechanisms, feedback loops, or recurring structures.
Conflicts — contradictions with the source, prior knowledge, or internal claims.
Decision support — options, tradeoffs, and what the evidence changes.
Action — one bounded next test, note, or decision.
Prefer one durable concept note over several thin notes. Preserve source links or block references; do not rewrite immutable source notes.
Verify that every material conclusion traces to evidence or is labeled inference; the original question is answered; contradictions remain visible; and the action follows from the model. Remove summaries that merely restate the source without changing understanding.
Failure Protocol
NEEDS_INPUT: the intended question or audience is absent and materially changes the output.
INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: the source cannot support the requested compile.
VERIFY_FAILED: a conclusion lacks traceable evidence; downgrade it to hypothesis or remove it.
Output Contract
Return status, result (the eight-section compile), evidence (source locators), unknowns, and next_action.
Edge Cases
Two sources disagree: preserve both claims, compare evidence quality, and state what observation could resolve the conflict.
The source is mostly opinion: compile mechanisms and assumptions, but do not promote assertions into facts.
Success Metrics
The result answers one explicit question with traceable evidence.
Facts, conflicts, and hypotheses are distinguishable at a glance.
At least one decision or test becomes clearer.
Quality Gates
Source boundary and provenance are explicit.
All eight sections are present or marked not applicable with reason.
