Menu
Tactic: Compile the feeding plan into an ARA via the external compiler, then run Level-2 rigor review over it
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 | compile-and-review |
| description | Tactic: Compile the feeding plan into an ARA via the external compiler, then run Level-2 rigor review over it |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | tactic |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| sops | ["ara-compile","ara-rigor-review"] |
| dependencies | {"sops":["ara-compile","ara-rigor-review"]} |
Key question: 把投喂计划编译成一份内部一致的 ARA,并做认识论审查。
Skill load ara-compile —— 把投喂计划整理成 compiler 的 $ARGUMENTS
(路径 + 标主干 + 大方向约束 + --output ../ara/),一次 inline 跑 compiler,
得 ../ara/(Seal Level 1 已过)。Skill load ara-rigor-review —— 对 ../ara/ 跑 rigor-reviewer 的 Level 2
六维审查,得 ara/level2_report.json,透传给用户。整条链是一次性前向流,不是自动迭代循环。D5 低分由用户决定是否回
context-review 补打捞。
ara/(完整 ARA)+ ara/level2_report.json。
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| ara-compile | SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/ |
| ara-rigor-review | SOP: Run the external ARA rigor-reviewer (Seal Level 2, six-dimension semantic review) over ../ara/ and pass its level2_report.json to the user |