메뉴
Tactic: Compile the feeding plan into an ARA via the external compiler, then run Level-2 rigor review over it
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
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 | compile-and-review |
| description | Tactic: Compile the feeding plan into an ARA via the external compiler, then run Level-2 rigor review over it |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | tactic |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| sops | ["ara-compile","ara-rigor-review"] |
| dependencies | {"sops":["ara-compile","ara-rigor-review"]} |
Key question: 把投喂计划编译成一份内部一致的 ARA,并做认识论审查。
Skill load ara-compile —— 把投喂计划整理成 compiler 的 $ARGUMENTS
(路径 + 标主干 + 大方向约束 + --output ../ara/),一次 inline 跑 compiler,
得 ../ara/(Seal Level 1 已过)。Skill load ara-rigor-review —— 对 ../ara/ 跑 rigor-reviewer 的 Level 2
六维审查,得 ara/level2_report.json,透传给用户。整条链是一次性前向流,不是自动迭代循环。D5 低分由用户决定是否回
context-review 补打捞。
ara/(完整 ARA)+ ara/level2_report.json。
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| ara-compile | SOP: Turn the feeding plan into the compiler's $ARGUMENTS and run the external ARA compiler once inline to produce ../ara/ |
| ara-rigor-review | SOP: Run the external ARA rigor-reviewer (Seal Level 2, six-dimension semantic review) over ../ara/ and pass its level2_report.json to the user |