Menu
Identify bottleneck dimensions from radar data with severity ranking.
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 | convergence-bottleneck-identification |
| description | Identify bottleneck dimensions from radar data with severity ranking. |
| execution | subagent |
| prompt | ./prompt.md |
| input | radar_data |
| dependencies | {"sops":["spawn-agent"]} |
Analyze radar chart data to identify which dimensions are bottlenecks — the limiting factors that constrain overall feasibility. Produces a severity-ranked list of bottlenecks with analysis of why each is limiting.
Spawns a subagent that:
Bottleneck identification requires comparative analysis across dimensions and judgment about which low scores are truly limiting vs. acceptable given the context.
Output MUST include: at least 1 bottleneck identified, severity ranking, and prioritized recommendation. Reject if no bottlenecks are identified (even high-readiness candidates have relative bottlenecks).
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| spawn-agent | Spawn a customized CC subagent with full MCP tool access. Used by SOPs that declare execution: subagent. |