メニュー
Tactic: Review a context/ directory — sort material into ARA types, locate and align the north-star, and produce a feeding plan for the compiler
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 | context-review |
| description | Tactic: Review a context/ directory — sort material into ARA types, locate and align the north-star, and produce a feeding plan for the compiler |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | tactic |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| sops | ["context-exploring","north-star-align"] |
| dependencies | {"sops":["context-exploring","north-star-align"]} |
Key question: 这批 context 里,生成 ARA 最重要的素材是什么?大方向和用户对齐了吗?
Skill load context-exploring —— 读 INDEX → 整目录分三类素材(报告线/过程线/
图片)→ 聚 arc 候选 → 定位 north-star 文件 → 草拟投喂计划。Skill load north-star-align —— 深读 north-star → 提炼大方向 → 复用
present-candidates/present-and-ask 与用户对齐 → 回填投喂计划的大方向 + arc 范围。① 对齐过的大方向 ② 完整投喂计划(主干文件 / trace 素材 / 图片清单 / arc 范围 /
大方向),交给 compile-and-review。
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| context-exploring | SOP: Read context/INDEX.md and sort the whole directory into three ARA material types (report line, process line, images), locate the north-star file, and draft a feeding plan for the ARA compiler |
| north-star-align | SOP: Deep-read the original north-star context, distill this ARA's overall direction, and align it with the user via the reused present-and-ask / present-candidates dialogue SOPs |
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.