Menu
SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/
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
Strategy: Attack an isomorphism claim by demanding an explicit structure-preserving map and trying to break it. Targets any multi-language claim of the form 'X ≅ Y ≅ … across N mathematical languages'. Forces the claim to either earn the word 'isomorphism' or be demoted to 'analogy'. Methods: category theory (functor/natural-iso criteria), model theory, Lakatos monster-barring.
Strategy: Dialectic engine retuned for truth-seeking, not survival. A defender steelmans a claim into its MOST falsifiable form, a critic attacks to refute it, a judge classifies the exchange into BROKEN/CORROBORATED/UNFALSIFIABLE — the judge does NOT pick a winner or score persuasiveness. Methods: Irving debate (repurposed), Toulmin argumentation, Mayo severe testing.
Strategy: Run BEFORE building any validator (sandbox/simulation/benchmark). Builds a non-circularity matrix of theory-claim × validator-assumption to detect when a validator would 'confirm' a theory only because it was built on the theory's own premises. A circular validator's PASS carries zero evidential weight. Methods: Cartwright nomological machines, Winsberg sanctioning-of-simulations, tautology detection.
Strategy: Attack a beautiful unified result on the suspicion that its beauty is the bug. Distinguishes EARNED simplicity (forbids/predicts/subsumes) from DECORATIVE simplicity (re-describes/relabels/accommodates). Directly serves the Occam aesthetic by making it a falsifiable bar, not a vibe. Methods: Sober parsimony-as-evidence, MDL, Meehl risky prediction, accommodation-vs-prediction.
Campaign: Truth-seeking adversarial validation for scientific research artifacts (NOT publication defense). Core question: Where have we fooled ourselves, and is each load-bearing claim even falsifiable? Win-condition is INVERTED from survival/resilience to active refutation. Methods: Popper falsificationism, Lakatos Proofs and Refutations, Mayo severe testing, Platt strong inference.
Strategy: Attack the evidential weight of an 'independent convergence' claim. When N reasoning paths all reach the same conclusion, the confidence boost is real only if the paths were actually independent. Measures shared-prior / shared-blindspot contamination and corrects the over-counted confidence. Methods: Bayesian agreement-as-evidence, correlated-error analysis, jury theorem assumptions.
| name | ara-compile |
| description | SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/ |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | sop |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| input | Completed feeding plan + aligned 大方向 (from north-star-align) |
| output | A populated ara/ directory (sibling to context/), ARA Seal Level 1 passed |
| dependencies | {"skills":["compiler"]} |
Key question: 怎么把投喂计划喂给外部 compiler,一次抽出一份内部一致的 ARA?
先确认外部 compiler skill 可 load(ARA skills 已装:npx @ara-commons/ara-skills)。
若不可用,提示用户安装并停下,不要静默继续。
ARA 的 cross-layer binding(claim→proof→evidence、tree→claim)必须全局一致。
分批 compile 会各自从 C01 起撞 ID、断 tree,汇总等于重缝半成品 —— 正是 ARA 要消灭
的事。compiler 自带覆盖度循环(max 3 轮)+ 内建 Task 工具;真需要并行由它内部
自理,本 SOP 不越俎拆分。
把投喂计划整理成 compiler 的 $ARGUMENTS:
--output ../ara/(与 context/ 平级,天然不会被下次 review 当 context 吃回去)。例:
compiler context/2026-06-06-01-30-stage7-...md context/2026-06-05-...stage6...md \
context/figures/*.png \
--output ../ara/ \
主干=stage7(报告线);其余为过程线/图片;大方向:<从 north-star-align 来的一段>
一次 inline 运行:Skill load compiler,传上面的 $ARGUMENTS。
compiler 跑 4 阶段(语义解构 → 认知映射 → src 层 → 探索图抽取)+ 覆盖度循环
Seal Level 1 不过:compiler 自带 fix-iterate(2–3 轮),本 SOP 不接管; 若仍不过,把失败报告透传给用户,停。
<workspace>/ara/(logic/ src/ trace/ evidence/ PAPER.md),Level 1 已过。
交给 ara-rigor-review。