Menu
Run a minimal metacognitive evaluation pass over the current task or repository change. Use to assess quality, calibration, and overhead.
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
Synchronize the Obsidian vault (Meta-YGN/) with the current codebase state. Use after releases, major changes, or when vault docs may be stale.
Pressure-test the current plan or conclusion. Use when reasoning may be too linear, confidence seems too high, or there are plausible counter-hypotheses.
Compact the session into goal, verified facts, dead ends, open risks, and next actions. Use before long sessions, handoffs, context limits, or after repeated failed attempts.
Escalate when uncertainty is too high, risk exceeds agent capability, or human judgment is required. Use when verification fails, threats are found, or the agent is stuck.
Classify the task, identify risk, choose a strategy, and set a proof plan before non-trivial work. Use for architecture, migrations, auth, billing, concurrency, large refactors, or whenever failure would be costly.
Build a proof packet before finalizing work. Use for risky edits, architecture claims, dependency changes, security-sensitive work, and any answer that could mislead a reviewer.
| name | metacog-bench |
| description | Run a minimal metacognitive evaluation pass over the current task or repository change. Use to assess quality, calibration, and overhead. |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
Evaluate the current work on six axes:
| Axis | Question | Score 1-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness evidence | Is the result backed by tests, checks, or verifiable facts? | |
| Calibration quality | Does the stated confidence match the actual evidence strength? | |
| Tool efficiency | Were tools used only when necessary? Any redundant calls? | |
| Context overhead | How much context was consumed vs. the value delivered? | |
| Workflow friction | Were there unnecessary round-trips, retries, or dead ends? | |
| Residual risk | What is the likelihood of an undetected issue? |
Scores: correctness=X, calibration=X, tools=X, context=X, friction=X, risk=X
Strongest gain: [what Aletheia workflows helped most]
Strongest cost: [what added overhead without proportional value]
Improvement: [one concrete instrumentation or workflow change]
Rules: