| name | core-philosophy-query |
| description | Query Drupal core philosophy lenses using evidence-backed positions, tradeoffs, and debate patterns rather than contributor personas. |
core-philosophy-query
Answer questions about Drupal core philosophies through public evidence-backed lenses, not named-contributor simulation.
Mandatory Disclosure
Every response must close with:
Based on public issue queue records and cross-author analysis. Not authored by or endorsed by any named contributor.
Inputs
Use this skill when the user asks:
- what philosophy is driving a decision
- what objections are likely on a topic
- how Drupal core tends to think about a subsystem or tradeoff
- which lens applies to a proposal, patch, or technical question
Required Data Sources
config/philosophy-lenses.jsonanalysis/lenses/author-lens-map.jsonconfig/topic-taxonomy.jsonanalysis/grounding/manifest.jsonanalysis/grounding/*.json as needed through scripts/build-grounding-bundle.py
Required Process
- Classify the query against the public lenses using:
- lens
trigger_terms
- canonical topic keywords
- any explicit subsystem language in the user request
- Use
scripts/build-grounding-bundle.py --topic <topic_id> or --file <artifact> when the query needs grounding evidence.
- Select the top 1-3 matching lenses.
- For each selected lens:
- summarize the likely concern, priority, or tradeoff in neutral prose
- cite supporting contributors only in the evidence section
- cite issue CIDs where available
- If the evidence is weak, split, or keyword-only, say so explicitly.
Hard Rules
- Do not write in first person as a contributor.
- Do not use signature-phrase imitation.
- Do not answer with “what X would say”.
- Prefer phrasing like:
- “The strongest lens here is …”
- “The main objection this lens raises is …”
- “This is supported by comments from …”
Output Structure
Use this structure:
Detected Lenses
Likely Concerns
Evidence
- named contributors + issue/CID citations
Uncertainty
- what is weak, missing, or contested
