taste

name	taste
description	Run a taste evaluation on a research proposal or technical direction. Determines whether to proceed, simplify, defer, or kill before committing research effort.
argument-hint	["proposal or question to evaluate"]
user-invocable	true

Evaluate this research direction: $ARGUMENTS

Process

1. Determine Evaluation Depth

Based on the proposal, select the appropriate depth:

Situation	Operations
Vague idea, needs sharpening	Compression test only
Specific technical proposal	Landscape + Dead-end estimation
Major resource commitment	Full pipeline (all 6 operations)
Stuck, need fresh angles	Cross-pollination only
Choosing between options	Prediction query only

2. Run Operations (in order, skip per above)

Compression Test — Force into: "We believe [X] because [Y], and if we're right, [Z] follows." If it can't survive compression, verdict is defer.

Landscape Assessment — Use WebSearch and Exa (web_search_exa) to find adjacent work, abandoned approaches, new capabilities. What exists? What changed recently?

Prediction Query — Simulate success and failure worlds. Is the direction informative under both outcomes?

Dead-End Estimation — What's the most likely failure mode? What's the time-to-signal (not time-to-completion)?

Simplicity Audit — Is there an 80%-value simpler version? Apply recursively.

Cross-Pollination — Check against other domains. Structural resonance = real signal.

3. Stop Early

If the verdict becomes clear at any step, stop. Don't run more operations just to fill out the report.

4. Output

## Taste Evaluation: [Title]

**Verdict:** proceed | simplify | defer | kill
**Rationale:** [One sentence]
**Compression:** [Single-sentence formulation]
**Landscape:** [Position relative to existing work]
**Prediction:** Success -> [X] / Failure -> [Y]
**Time-to-signal:** [Estimate]
**Simplification:** [Cheaper version, if any]
**Cross-domain:** [Analogies, if checked]
**Next step:** [Concrete action]

Omit unchecked sections.