メニュー
Simulates diverse stakeholder perspectives and their strongest objections/support arguments. Shared across steel-manning and consensus campaigns.
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
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.
| name | convergence-multi-stakeholder-simulation |
| description | Simulates diverse stakeholder perspectives and their strongest objections/support arguments. Shared across steel-manning and consensus campaigns. |
| execution | subagent |
| prompt | ./prompt.md |
| input | stakeholder_profiles[], decision_context (string) |
| dependencies | {"sops":["spawn-agent"]} |
Simulates multiple stakeholder perspectives to surface objections and support arguments that a single-perspective analysis would miss.
Subagent — spawned via subagent-spawning/spawn-agent skill.
Stakeholder simulation requires genuine perspective-taking — inhabiting each role fully without contamination from other perspectives. Dedicated context enables authentic role-play.
Must simulate ≥3 distinct perspectives. Fewer than 3 perspectives cannot claim multi-stakeholder coverage.
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| spawn-agent | Spawn a customized CC subagent with full MCP tool access. Used by SOPs that declare execution: subagent. |
