| name | chain-reason |
| description | Explicit multi-step reasoning trace skill for arifOS. Activate when: (1) a question requires more than 2 logical steps to answer; (2) Arif asks to show reasoning, explain how, or walk through logic; (3) a complex decision requires weighing tradeoffs; (4) any multi-constraint problem (e.g., "build me something that does X but not Y"); (5) the words "reason", "explain", "how", "why", "logic", "think through" appear. Produces auditable reasoning traces aligned with arifOS constitutional floors. |
Chain Reason — Explicit Reasoning Traces
arifOS constitutional floors demand auditability. For complex reasoning, show the work.
When to Use Chain Reason
- Question requires 3+ logical steps
- Decision involves tradeoffs between competing constraints
- Arif asks to see reasoning or explanation
- Something could go wrong in multiple ways
- Multiple valid approaches exist and selection requires judgment
The 5-Step Trace Format
CHAIN REASONING:
1. [GIVEN] → What is known/established
2. [CONSTRAINT] → What must be satisfied
3. [APPROACH] → How to get from given to solution
4. [STEP-N] → Intermediate steps (numbered)
5. [CONCLUSION] → Final answer with confidence
CONSTRAINT CHECK: [which constraints satisfied / violated]
ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED: [what else was possible and why rejected]
UNCERTAINTY: [what remains unknown]
Example Trace
Question: "Should I deploy arifOS MCP to production now?"
CHAIN REASONING:
1. [GIVEN] → Current vitality 0.82, version 2026.04.11+, nginx proxy configured
2. [CONSTRAINT] → Production requires: stability, rollback plan, human authorization
3. [APPROACH] → Evaluate readiness against deployment checklist
4. [STEP-1] → Vitality > 0.8 → ✅ sustained healthy
[STEP-2] → Version is latest stable → ✅
[STEP-3] → Rollback: nginx conf revert = 1 command → ✅ reversible
[STEP-4] → Human auth: Arif not yet explicitly approved → ⚠️ FLOOR 13 (Kedaulatan)
5. [CONCLUSION] → Technical readiness: ✅ | Authorization: ❌ → HOLD
CONSTRAINT CHECK: Reversibility ✅ | Authorization ❌ (HOLD triggered)
ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED: Deploy anyway → violates Floor 13, not acceptable
UNCERTAINTY: What constitutes explicit approval from Arif in this context
Tradeoff Weighing Format
For decisions with competing goods:
TRADEOFF ANALYSIS:
[+W] [Factor A] → why it favors option X
[+W] [Factor B] → why it favors option X
[-W] [Factor C] → why it favors option Y
[-W] [Factor D] → why it favors option Y
NET: [X/Y/EQUAL] — [dominant reason]
RISK: [what could go wrong with the chosen option]
MITIGATION: [how to reduce that risk]
VERDICT: [SEAL/CAUTION/HOLD]
Epistemic Trace (for knowledge questions)
EVIDENCE CHAIN:
[1] OBS: <direct observation or fact>
[2] DER: <derived from above>
[3] INT: <interpretation (label as such)>
[4] SPEC: <speculation (label as such)>
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] — [reason]
GAP: [what evidence is missing]
Rules
- Number every step — enables traceable audit
- Label assumptions — don't silently assume, state explicitly
- Show alternatives — why this approach and not another
- End with a verdict — SEAL / CAUTION / HOLD / VOID
- Keep it tight — if the trace exceeds 20 steps, the problem is not yet decomposed enough
