メニュー
SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | ara-compile |
| description | SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/ |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | sop |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| input | Completed feeding plan + aligned 大方向 (from north-star-align) |
| output | A populated ara/ directory (sibling to context/), ARA Seal Level 1 passed |
| dependencies | {"skills":["compiler"]} |
Key question: 怎么把投喂计划喂给外部 compiler,一次抽出一份内部一致的 ARA?
先确认外部 compiler skill 可 load(ARA skills 已装:npx @ara-commons/ara-skills)。
若不可用,提示用户安装并停下,不要静默继续。
ARA 的 cross-layer binding(claim→proof→evidence、tree→claim)必须全局一致。
分批 compile 会各自从 C01 起撞 ID、断 tree,汇总等于重缝半成品 —— 正是 ARA 要消灭
的事。compiler 自带覆盖度循环(max 3 轮)+ 内建 Task 工具;真需要并行由它内部
自理,本 SOP 不越俎拆分。
把投喂计划整理成 compiler 的 $ARGUMENTS:
--output ../ara/(与 context/ 平级,天然不会被下次 review 当 context 吃回去)。例:
compiler context/2026-06-06-01-30-stage7-...md context/2026-06-05-...stage6...md \
context/figures/*.png \
--output ../ara/ \
主干=stage7(报告线);其余为过程线/图片;大方向:<从 north-star-align 来的一段>
一次 inline 运行:Skill load compiler,传上面的 $ARGUMENTS。
compiler 跑 4 阶段(语义解构 → 认知映射 → src 层 → 探索图抽取)+ 覆盖度循环
Seal Level 1 不过:compiler 自带 fix-iterate(2–3 轮),本 SOP 不接管; 若仍不过,把失败报告透传给用户,停。
<workspace>/ara/(logic/ src/ trace/ evidence/ PAPER.md),Level 1 已过。
交给 ara-rigor-review。
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.