| name | rc-extract |
| description | Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or supporting sources. |
Quick Claim Extraction
Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or supporting sources.
When This Skill Activates
- "Extract claims from"
- "Quick extract"
- "Harvest claims from"
Extract claims from a source without performing full 3-stage analysis. Use for quick claim harvesting or when sources are supporting evidence rather than primary subjects.
When to Use
- Quick extraction of claims from supporting sources
- Building cross-reference evidence for existing claims
- Initial triage before deciding on full analysis
- Sources that are data-heavy rather than argument-heavy
Output Format
claims:
- id: "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"
text: "[Precise claim statement]"
type: "[F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X]"
domain: "[DOMAIN]"
evidence_level: "E[1-6]"
credence: 0.XX
source_ids: ["[source-id]"]
Claim Types
| Type | Symbol | Definition |
|---|
| Fact | [F] | Empirically verified, consensus reality |
| Theory | [T] | Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support |
| Hypothesis | [H] | Testable proposition, awaiting evidence |
| Prediction | [P] | Future-oriented claim with specified conditions |
| Assumption | [A] | Underlying premise (stated or unstated) |
| Counterfactual | [C] | Alternative scenario for comparison |
| Speculation | [S] | Unfalsifiable or untestable claim |
| Contradiction | [X] | Identified logical inconsistency |
Evidence Hierarchy
Use this hierarchy to rate strength of evidential support for claims.
| Level | Strength | Description | Credence Range |
|---|
| E1 | Strong Empirical | Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments | 0.9-1.0 |
| E2 | Moderate Empirical | Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics | 0.6-0.8 |
| E3 | Strong Theoretical | Expert consensus, working papers, preprints | 0.5-0.7 |
| E4 | Weak Theoretical | Industry reports, credible journalism | 0.3-0.5 |
| E5 | Opinion/Forecast | Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion | 0.2-0.4 |
| E6 | Unsupported | Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims | 0.0-0.2 |
Domain Codes
| Code | Description |
|---|
| TECH | Technology, AI capabilities, tech trajectories |
| LABOR | Employment, automation, human work |
| ECON | Value theory, pricing, distribution, ownership |
| GOV | Governance, policy, regulation |
| SOC | Social structures, culture, behavior |
| RESOURCE | Scarcity, abundance, allocation |
| TRANS | Transition dynamics, pathways |
| GEO | International relations, state competition |
| INST | Institutions, organizations |
| RISK | Risk assessment, failure modes |
| META | Claims about the framework/analysis itself |
Notes
- Quick extractions should be labeled with
Analysis Depth: quick in the analysis file
- Minimum requirements: Metadata, Legends, Claim Summary table, Claims YAML
- Full Stage 2 evaluation tables (verification, counterevidence, tensions, persuasion) are optional for quick extractions
- If a source proves more significant, upgrade to full analysis with
$check --continue
Related Skills
