원클릭으로
reasoning-verifier
Verify LLM reasoning using Reverse Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) to detect overlooked conditions.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Verify LLM reasoning using Reverse Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) to detect overlooked conditions.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use when building web components, pages, or applications. Includes framework-specific guidance for Tailwind, React, Vue, and Rails/Hotwire ecosystems.
Skill file structure, naming conventions, directory layout, frontmatter requirements, and invocation control. Use when creating skill files or slash commands to ensure correct format and validation.
Forces adversarial reasoning before committing to decisions. Triggers on architectural choices, approach selection, and planning phases to prevent premature commitment bias.
Autonomous task implementation - research, plan, build, review, fix, ship
Generate a complete favicon set (ICO, PNG variants, apple-touch-icon, web manifest) from a source image and integrate into the project's HTML layout. Use when user asks to generate favicons, set up PWA icons, or add an apple-touch-icon.
Save session state to ledger file for continuity across crashes, context switches, or /clear + reload cycles.
| name | reasoning-verifier |
| description | Verify LLM reasoning using Reverse Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) to detect overlooked conditions. |
| allowed-tools | Read Grep Glob |
Verify reasoning using the Reverse Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) methodology to detect and correct errors in LLM-generated solutions by systematically comparing what the problem stated versus what the solution assumed.
Follow these steps in order:
Extract all conditions from the original problem:
Format:
## Original Conditions
1. [Condition from original problem]
2. [Condition from original problem]
3. [Condition from original problem]
...
Analyze the provided solution and reconstruct what problem it appears to solve:
Format:
## Reconstructed Conditions (from solution)
1. [Condition the solution assumed]
2. [Condition the solution assumed]
3. [Condition the solution assumed]
...
## Solution's Answer: [final answer]
Compare the two condition lists to find discrepancies:
Overlooked Conditions: Present in original but NOT used in solution
Hallucinated Conditions: Present in solution but NOT in original
For each candidate condition, ask: "Can this be logically deduced from the other condition list?"
Format:
## Comparison Results
### Overlooked Conditions
- [Condition X] from original was not addressed
- Impact: [How this affects the solution]
### Hallucinated Conditions
- [Condition Y] was assumed but not stated
- Validity: [Can this be deduced? YES/NO]
- Impact: [How this affects the solution]
Classify the severity of each discrepancy:
If errors are found, generate targeted correction prompts:
For overlooked conditions:
You have ignored some real conditions:
1. [overlooked condition]
Here are detailed reasons:
1. [Why this condition matters and how it affects the answer]
For hallucinated conditions:
You have assumed conditions not in the problem:
1. [hallucinated condition]
This cannot be logically derived because:
1. [Why this assumption is invalid]
If errors were found, provide the corrected solution:
After producing the revised solution, apply this stopping rule:
If Severity == Critical or Major:
Re-run from Step 1 using the Revised Solution as the new "provided solution"
Increment iteration counter (start at 1, cap at 3)
If iteration counter == 3: halt regardless of severity, flag as "max iterations reached"
Else (Severity == Minor or None):
Halt — output final verified solution + iteration count
Label verdict: "No critical gaps remain"
Do NOT target "100% confidence" as a stopping criterion — that framing is unachievable and produces false certainty. The correct stopping condition is no critical or major gaps remain.
# RCoT Verification Report
## Problem Summary
[Brief description of the problem being verified]
## Original Conditions
1. [condition]
2. [condition]
...
## Reconstructed Conditions (from solution)
1. [condition]
2. [condition]
...
## Comparison Results
### Overlooked Conditions
[List or "None found"]
### Hallucinated Conditions
[List or "None found"]
## Verdict: [CORRECT / NEEDS REVISION]
## Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor / None]
---
[If NEEDS REVISION:]
## Revision Prompt
[Generated prompt to correct the solution]
## Revised Solution
[Corrected answer with proper reasoning]
Original Problem: "Mary has 40 window ledges. She has 2 potted plants on each ledge. Yesterday, she received 18 new potted plants from her favorite nursery. She decided to give away 1 potted plant from each ledge. How many potted plants will Mary remain with?"
Original Solution: "Mary has 2 x 40 = 80 plants. After giving away 1 from each ledge, she has 80 - 40 = 40 plants."
RCoT Analysis:
Revised Solution: "Mary starts with 2 x 40 = 80 plants. She receives 18 new plants, giving her 80 + 18 = 98 plants. After giving away 1 from each of 40 ledges, she has 98 - 40 = 58 plants."