yao-crux-skill

name	yao-crux-skill
description	Use when a user is stuck in a complex real-world situation with many conflicts, limited resources, unclear priorities, or asks to identify the principal contradiction, secondary contradictions, dominant aspect, breakthrough actions, monitoring thresholds, probability projection, and Markdown/Word/HTML/PDF reports. Triggers on 矛盾论, 主要矛盾, 次要矛盾, 主次矛盾, 卡住了, 优先级混乱, 找关键问题, 资源有限, 冲突很多. Do not use for philosophy-only summaries, Mao text commentary with no live case, generic brainstorming with no diagnosis, or final licensed medical, legal, investment, or psychological-crisis advice.
metadata	{"author":"Yao Team","maturity":"production-scaffold","public_release":"sanitized"}

Yao Crux Skill

Use this skill to first clarify the user's current situation, then turn it into a principal-contradiction diagnosis, a secondary-contradiction watchlist, a focused action plan, and a four-format report bundle.

Use This Skill For

• ask concise follow-up questions before judging a user's current situation
• assess whether the user's current situation is clear enough for diagnosis before naming the principal contradiction
• produce a confirmable current-state snapshot with goal, facts, stage, resources, constraints, stakeholders, and repeated patterns
• identify goals, stage, constraints, facts, stakeholders, resources, and repeated conflict patterns
• rewrite messy symptoms as candidate contradictions in the form 力量A 与 力量B 的冲突
• run a first-principles layer scan so the principal contradiction can be an upstream, not-yet-visible constraint rather than the loudest symptom
• use the three plain principal-contradiction checks: 决定性, 牵引性, and 阶段性
• separate internal changeable structures from external hard conditions, then judge how external conditions act through internal structure
• use Bayesian-style evidence updates and Ockham-razor parsimony as supporting checks when candidate contradictions are close
• score principal and secondary contradictions by goal impact, causal leverage, stage urgency, resource constraint, changeability, spillover risk, and evidence strength
• identify the principal aspect inside the principal contradiction
• recommend 1-3 breakthrough actions that explicitly weaken or reverse the principal aspect, monitoring thresholds, review conditions, and probability projections after action
• make resource and attention allocation decisive when the principal contradiction is clear, typically concentrating 50%-70% of high-leverage resources on the main line
• include visual reasoning modules: analysis flow, iceberg model, contradiction decision matrix, resource allocation, and stage transition map
• write user-facing reports that explicitly use 主要矛盾 and 次要矛盾, while translating them with practical labels such as 最关键的卡点 and 先不主攻，但要盯住
• export synchronized markdown, html, docx, and pdf reports using the Kami-style layout rules in this package

Do Not Route Here

• generic explanation of 矛盾论 with no concrete user case
• historical, ideological, or textual commentary where no diagnosis or action report is needed
• broad brainstorming that does not require a principal/secondary contradiction conclusion
• final professional medical, legal, investment, safety-critical, or psychological-crisis advice

Default Workflow

1. Read references/intake-and-questioning.md; extract the user's target, stage, constraints, resources, facts, stakeholders, and previous attempts.
2. Run the current-state gate from references/intake-and-questioning.md or scripts/current_state_clarity.py; score clarity before diagnosis.
3. If clarity is insufficient, do not name a principal contradiction. Ask no more than 3 decisive questions and stop.
4. If clarity is workable, produce a provisional current-state snapshot, ask the missing questions, and label any contradiction read as provisional.
5. If clarity is clear, restate the current-state snapshot and ask the user to confirm or correct it before deep diagnosis.
6. Run references/safety-and-boundaries.md; hard constraints remain guardrails even when they are not the principal contradiction.
7. Read references/theory-anchors.md; use 决定性, 牵引性, and 阶段性 as the plain-language front gate before detailed scoring.
8. Use the first-principles gate in references/contradiction-model.md: separate visible symptoms from the hidden root variable that can explain several symptoms together.
9. Separate 内部可改变结构, 外部硬条件, and 外因通过内因起作用; do not mistake an external condition for the principal contradiction when an internal response path is available.
10. Build 3-7 candidate contradictions, including at least one upstream candidate if the visible symptoms share a common cause.
11. Score candidates with the weighted model; use Bayesian-style updates to ask which explanation fits the evidence best.
12. Apply Ockham razor only as a supporting tie-breaker: prefer the explanation that covers more symptoms with fewer extra assumptions.
13. If the top contradiction is below 3.5/5 or the evidence is too weak, return a provisional read and ask for the missing evidence instead of over-claiming.
14. Identify the principal contradiction, its principal aspect, secondary contradictions, defer reasons, monitor triggers, and review conditions.
15. Tie each breakthrough action to the principal aspect: say whether it weakens the currently dominant side, strengthens the weaker side, or changes their relationship.
16. Reallocate resources aggressively when evidence is sufficient: protect the main line, cap secondary contradictions, and keep only minimal stop-loss capacity for monitored risks.
17. Build a canonical report input JSON using , including visual and dynamic-stage fields when available.

Output Contract

• Lead with the conclusion: current principal contradiction, principal aspect, confidence, and first action.
• Before the conclusion, make sure the current-state snapshot is explicit enough; if not, lead with follow-up questions instead of a diagnosis.
• Default report headings must integrate the concepts and the practical translation: 主要矛盾（最关键的卡点）, 次要矛盾（先不主攻，但要盯住）, 主要矛盾判断过程.
• The report must show the first-principles reasoning: 看得见的问题, 上升一层, 看不见的根部变量, and why the visible issue is not necessarily the principal contradiction.
• The report must explain the principal contradiction through 决定性, 牵引性, and 阶段性 before falling back to scores.
• The report must separate 内部可改变结构 from 外部硬条件, then explain how external conditions act through internal structure.
• The report must include the visual reasoning sections 一张图看懂：从表象到主要矛盾, 时间、精力、资源应该怎么重新分配, and 主要矛盾什么时候会转移.
• HTML/PDF reports should render four inline SVG charts plus a photo-based iceberg module. The iceberg must use a real above-water/below-water iceberg image, not a flat glacier, abstract triangle, or decorative ice background. When the image is wide enough, place it as a full-width visual anchor, put 水面上 and 水面下 explanation cards below it, and make 当前主要矛盾 a full-width long module. Markdown and DOCX can use readable text/table fallbacks.
• Mark major facts and numbers as observed, estimated, or assumed.
• Keep the analysis dynamic: every principal contradiction conclusion needs a reversal condition and a review point.
• Treat secondary contradictions as monitored risks, not ignored problems.
• Keep action advice narrow: 1-3 actions with owner, deadline, resource, metric, and expected effect.
• Each action should name the principal aspect it changes.
• When diagnosis confidence is sufficient, resource allocation should be deliberately tilted rather than balanced: usually 50%-70% to the principal contradiction, 10%-25% to secondary-risk containment, and 10%-20% to monitoring/evidence.
• Include probability projection as a decision-support estimate, not a promise: baseline probability, expected action uplift, risk drag, scenario probabilities, and sensitivity notes.
• Reports default to Simplified Chinese and must stay synchronized across Markdown, HTML, Word, and PDF.

Reference Map

• references/intake-and-questioning.md: follow-up strategy and input contract
• references/theory-anchors.md: theory-to-rule anchors for principal contradiction, internal/external causes, principal aspect, and aggressive resource allocation
• references/contradiction-model.md: scoring model, principal aspect, secondary contradiction, and probability projection rules
• references/report-contract.md: report sections and language standard
• references/report-export-pipeline.md: four-format generation workflow and verification
• references/kami-layout-guide.md: Kami-derived layout rules for the report bundle
• references/safety-and-boundaries.md: high-risk and professional-boundary gates
• reference-materials/README.md: downloadable background research and design materials for readers
• templates/crux-report.schema.json: canonical input/report shape
• scripts/generate_report_bundle.py: JSON to Markdown, HTML, DOCX, PDF, and report JSON
• scripts/current_state_clarity.py: current-state clarity gate and follow-up question selector
• scripts/verify_report_bundle.py: generated artifact checks