result-to-claim

name	result-to-claim
description	Use when experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.
argument-hint	[experiment-description-or-wandb-run]
allowed-tools	Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply

Result-to-Claim Gate

🔒 Do not wrap this skill in /loop, /schedule, or CronCreate. It is verdict-bearing — it judges whether results support a claim. Re-running that verdict on a wall-clock timer adds no new signal (the verdict changes only when the results change, not when the clock ticks). What you actually want to schedule is the external wait that precedes it — experiments done → then run this gate once. See shared-references/external-cadence.md.

Experiments produce numbers; this gate decides what those numbers mean. Collect results from available sources, get a Codex judgment, then auto-route based on the verdict.

Context: $ARGUMENTS

When to Use

• After a set of experiments completes (main results, not just sanity checks)
• Before committing to claims in a paper or review response
• When results are ambiguous and you need an objective second opinion

Workflow

Step 1: Collect Results

Gather experiment data from whatever sources are available in the project:

1. W&B (preferred): wandb.Api().run("<entity>/<project>/<run_id>").history() — metrics, training curves, comparisons
2. EXPERIMENT_LOG.md: full results table with baselines and verdicts
3. EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md: check which experiments are DONE vs still running
4. Log files: ssh server "tail -100 /path/to/training.log" if no other source
5. idea-stage/docs/research_contract.md (legacy fallback: docs/research_contract.md): intended claims and experiment design

Assemble the key information:

• What experiments were run (method, dataset, config)
• Main metrics and baseline comparisons (deltas)
• The intended claim these experiments were designed to test
• Any known confounds or caveats

Step 1.5: Deterministic evidence pre-check (before spending a Codex call)

For every claim that cites a specific number + a source file, verify the evidence exists mechanically — no model call — to catch hallucinated evidence before the jury runs (see shared-references/evidence-precheck.md).

1. Build the claims list. From the cited numbers and their result files, write [{"id", "value", "source"}, ...] to .aris/claims.json (source is the result file/glob relative to the project root; value is the cited number or string).

2. Run the pre-check — this is a real step, not a suggestion. Execute the block below (resolver per integration-contract §2, Policy B: warn-and-skip if the helper is unresolved — never block the audit):

# Policy B = warn-and-skip: nothing here may abort the audit. cd is non-fatal, the
# helper run is explicitly non-blocking, no pipefail-fragile pipe.
cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" 2>/dev/null || true
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f .aris/installed-skills.txt ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f "$HOME/.aris/repo" ]; then
    ARIS_REPO=$(cat "$HOME/.aris/repo" 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
EVIDENCE_CHECK=".aris/tools/evidence_check.py"
[ -f "$EVIDENCE_CHECK" ] || EVIDENCE_CHECK="tools/evidence_check.py"
[ -f "$EVIDENCE_CHECK" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && EVIDENCE_CHECK="$ARIS_REPO/tools/evidence_check.py"; }
[ -f "$EVIDENCE_CHECK" ] || EVIDENCE_CHECK=""

mkdir -p .aris
if [ -n "$EVIDENCE_CHECK" ]; then
    # NB: evidence_check exits 1 when it FINDS hallucinated evidence (value_not_found /
    # path_missing) — that is the useful signal, NOT a failure. So judge success by
    
    python3  . --batch .aris/claims.json > .aris/evidence_precheck.json 2>.aris/evidence_precheck.err || 
     [ -s .aris/evidence_precheck.json ] && python3 -c  2>/dev/null; 
         .aris/evidence_precheck.json
    
          >&2
          >&2
    

      >&2
      >&2
      >&2

The output is {"results": [{id, value, source, status, ...}], "summary": {status: n}} with status ∈ {verified, value_not_found, path_missing, unparseable}.

3. Act on the statuses. Any claim returned value_not_found or path_missing is hallucinated evidence — mark it claim_supported: no with integrity_status: evidence_not_found immediately; do NOT spend a Codex call defending a number that isn't in the data. unparseable claims (no usable value/source) just go to the jury normally.

4. Carry the per-claim status into Step 2. Feed a small evidence pre-check: <id> → verified | value_not_found | path_missing | unparseable table (from .aris/evidence_precheck.json) into the Step-2 Codex prompt so the jury knows which claims have real evidence to read. If the pre-check was skipped (helper unresolved), say so in that slot rather than omitting it.

verified here means only that the cited evidence exists — whether it supports the claim is still the Codex jury's call in Step 2 (a deterministic gate DRIVES, it does not ACQUIT).

Step 2: Codex Judgment

Send the collected results to Codex for objective evaluation. Include ONLY claims that passed the Step 1.5 pre-check — claims already terminally rejected (evidence_not_found) keep their deterministic verdict and are NOT re-litigated here:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.6-sol
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "ultra"}
  prompt: |
    RESULT-TO-CLAIM EVALUATION

    I need you to judge whether experimental results support the intended claim.

    Intended claim: [the claim these experiments test]

    Experiments run:
    [list experiments with method, dataset, metrics]

    Results:
    [paste key numbers, comparison deltas, significance]

    Evidence pre-check (deterministic, from Step 1.5):
    [per-claim: <id> → verified | value_not_found | path_missing.
     A value_not_found/path_missing means the cited number is NOT in its result
     file — treat that claim as having no evidence; do not defend it. `verified`
     means the number exists in the file — YOU still judge whether it supports
     the claim.]

    Baselines:
    [baseline numbers and sources — reproduced or from paper]

    Known caveats:
    [any confounding factors, limited datasets, missing comparisons]

    Please evaluate:
    1. claim_supported: yes | partial | no
    2. what_results_support: what the data actually shows
    3. what_results_dont_support: where the data falls short of the claim
    4. missing_evidence: specific evidence gaps
    5. suggested_claim_revision: if the claim should be strengthened, weakened, or reframed
    6. next_experiments_needed: specific experiments to fill gaps (if any)
    7. confidence: high | medium | low

    Be honest. Do not inflate claims beyond what the data supports.
    A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim.

Step 3: Parse and Normalize

Extract structured fields from Codex response:

- claim_supported: yes | partial | no
- what_results_support: "..."
- what_results_dont_support: "..."
- missing_evidence: "..."
- suggested_claim_revision: "..."
- next_experiments_needed: "..."
- confidence: high | medium | low

Step 3.5: Check Experiment Integrity (if audit exists)

Skip this step if EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.json does not exist.

if EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.json exists:
    read integrity_status from file
    attach to verdict output:
        integrity_status: pass | warn | fail

    if integrity_status == "fail":
        append to verdict: "[INTEGRITY CONCERN] — audit found issues, see EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.md"
        downgrade confidence to "low" regardless of Codex judgment

    if integrity_status == "warn":
        append to verdict: "[INTEGRITY: WARN] — audit flagged potential issues"
else:
    integrity_status = "unavailable"
    verdict is labeled "provisional — no integrity audit run"
    (this does NOT block anything — pipeline continues normally)

See shared-references/experiment-integrity.md for the full integrity protocol.

Step 4: Route Based on Verdict

no — Claim not supported

1. Record postmortem in findings.md (Research Findings section):
   • What was tested, what failed, hypotheses for why
   • Constraints for future attempts (what NOT to try again)
2. Update CLAUDE.md Pipeline Status
3. Decide whether to pivot to next idea from IDEA_CANDIDATES.md or try an alternative approach

partial — Claim partially supported

1. Update the working claim to reflect what IS supported
2. Record the gap in findings.md
3. Design and run supplementary experiments to fill evidence gaps
4. Re-run result-to-claim after supplementary experiments complete
5. Multiple rounds of partial on the same claim → record analysis in findings.md, consider whether to narrow the claim scope or switch ideas

yes — Claim supported

1. Record confirmed claim in project notes
2. If ablation studies are incomplete → trigger /ablation-planner
3. If all evidence is in → ready for paper writing

Step 5: Update Research Wiki (if active)

Skip this step entirely if research-wiki/ does not exist.

If research-wiki/ exists, resolve $WIKI_SCRIPT per the canonical chain documented in shared-references/wiki-helper-resolution.md (Variant B — warn-and-skip for caller skills). The verdict / idea-outcome page edits below run on raw markdown and don't need the helper, but edges, query-pack rebuild, and the log line do. This skill never edits a claim's status field and never creates a claim node — claims are born (and their proof status set) by /proof-checker; here we only attach experiment edges.

cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" || exit 1
ARIS_REPO="${ARIS_REPO:-$(awk -F'\t' '$1=="repo_root"{print $2; exit}' .aris/installed-skills.txt 2>/dev/null)}"
if [ -z "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && [ -f "$HOME/.aris/repo" ]; then
  ARIS_REPO=$(cat "$HOME/.aris/repo" 2>/dev/null) || true
fi
WIKI_SCRIPT=".aris/tools/research_wiki.py"
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || WIKI_SCRIPT="tools/research_wiki.py"
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || { [ -n "${ARIS_REPO:-}" ] && WIKI_SCRIPT="$ARIS_REPO/tools/research_wiki.py"; }
[ -f "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] || {
  echo "WARN: research_wiki.py not found; verdict will be reported but wiki edges/query-pack/log will be skipped. Fix: bash tools/install_aris.sh or smart_update.sh (refreshes ~/.aris/repo), export ARIS_REPO, or cp <ARIS-repo>/tools/research_wiki.py tools/." >&2
  WIKI_SCRIPT=""
}

if research-wiki/ exists:
    # 1. Create/refresh the experiment node FIRST (verdict OWNER → --update-on-exist so
    #    a re-judge overwrites the stale verdict). The supports/invalidates edges in #2
    #    point FROM exp:<id>, and add_edge does NOT verify node existence — so GATE those
    #    edges on the experiment node having been born (EXP_NODE_OK), else they'd dangle
    #    (the exact bug this closes). On failure: warn, skip the wiki edges, still report.
    EXP_NODE_OK=0
    if [ -n "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ]; then
      if python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" add_experiment research-wiki/ \
           --slug "<exp_id>" --idea "idea:<active_idea>" \
           --verdict "<yes|partial|no>" --confidence "<high|medium|low>" \
           --date "<date>" --hardware "<hw>" --duration "<dur>" \
           --metrics "<key metrics>" --reasoning "<one-line why this verdict>" \
           --provenance "<EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.md / run dir>" --update-on-exist; then
        EXP_NODE_OK=1   # page written + idea--tested_by-->exp edge + index/query_pack rebuilt
      else
        echo "WARN: add_experiment failed for <exp_id>; skipping wiki edges (verdict still reported)." >&2
      fi
    fi

    # 2. Record empirical support as EDGES ONLY — and ONLY when the exp node was born
    #    ([ "$EXP_NODE_OK" = 1 ]), so no edge dangles off a missing node. Never edit the
    #    claim page's `status`: that is the PROOF axis (verified / refuted / unproven /
    #    sound-modulo-imports / drafted / retracted), owned by /proof-checker (the claim
    #    birth point) — "supported"/"invalidated" are NOT valid claim statuses. The claim
    #    target should ALREADY be born by /proof-checker; add_edge does not verify it.
    for each claim resolved by this verdict (only if [ "$EXP_NODE_OK" = 1 ]):
        if verdict == "yes":
            python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" add_edge research-wiki/ --from "exp:<id>" --to "claim:<cid>" --type supports --evidence "<metric>"
        elif verdict == "partial":
            python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" add_edge research-wiki/ --from "exp:<id>" --to "claim:<cid>" --type supports --evidence "partial: <metric>"
        else:
            python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" add_edge research-wiki/ --from "exp:<id>" --to "claim:<cid>" --type invalidates --evidence "<why>"

    # 3. Update idea outcome (raw markdown, helper-free)
    Update research-wiki/ideas/<idea_id>.md:
      - outcome: positive | mixed | negative
      - If negative: fill "Failure / Risk Notes" and "Lessons Learned"
      - If positive: fill "Actual Outcome" and "Reusable Components"

    # 4. Rebuild + log (only if $WIKI_SCRIPT resolved)
    [ -n "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] && python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" rebuild_query_pack research-wiki/
    [ -n "$WIKI_SCRIPT" ] && python3 "$WIKI_SCRIPT" log research-wiki/ "result-to-claim: exp:<id> verdict=<verdict> for idea:<idea_id>"

    # 5. Re-ideation suggestion
    Count failed/partial ideas since last /idea-creator run.
    If >= 3: print "💡 3+ ideas tested since last ideation. Consider re-running /idea-creator — the wiki now knows what doesn't work."

Rules

• Codex is the judge, not CC. CC collects evidence and routes; Codex evaluates. This prevents post-hoc rationalization.
• Do not inflate claims beyond what the data supports. If Codex says "partial", do not round up to "yes".
• A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim. Be honest about scope.
• If confidence is low, treat the judgment as inconclusive and add experiments rather than committing to a claim.
• Fail closed if the reviewer is unavailable. If the Codex call fails, first walk the capability fallback chain in shared-references/reviewer-routing.md (gpt-5.6-sol+ultra → gpt-5.6-sol+xhigh → gpt-5.5+xhigh, capability errors only). If no allowed pair succeeds: write CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md containing ONLY the first line verdict: REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE (a machine-checkable gate for pipeline callers), record the same in findings.md, and STOP — CC never substitutes its own claim judgment (a loop can drive, never acquit; acceptance-gate.md). Downstream steps (wiki add_experiment edges, ablation-planner, paper claims) must not consume a run without a Codex verdict. Exception: the deterministic evidence pre-check (Step 1.5) may still terminally mark a claim claim_supported: no for hallucinated evidence — a deterministic rejection needs no reviewer; only SUPPORTIVE or ambiguous outcomes require one.
• Always record the verdict and reasoning in findings.md, regardless of outcome.

Review Tracing

After each mcp__codex__codex or mcp__codex__codex-reply reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Use save_trace.sh (resolved per the chain in shared-references/integration-contract.md §2) or write files directly to .aris/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).