基于 SOC 职业分类
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/benjam3n/reasoningtool --skill saropc命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
Route any input through a branching question tree to narrow down the optimal response strategy before writing. Two stages — PERCEIVE (classify input) then ACT (select response). Covers all prompt types.
Generate exhaustive guesses about user input using ALL search methods with coverage tracking. Guessing is SEARCH through possibility space. Tracks space created vs space covered to ensure comprehensive exploration.
Systematically evaluate and select from a set of guesses, options, or possibilities. Combines ARAW analysis with prioritization to determine which guesses are strong, weak, actionable, or eliminable.
| name | saropc |
| description | Apply Recursive Causal Interrogation to choices about what procedure to run, what to measure, and when to stop. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Apply Recursive Causal Interrogation to choices about what procedure to run, what to measure, and when to stop. This is a self-audit skill — it examines your OWN decision-making about procedures.
The core question: Why am I choosing THIS procedure, THIS measurement, THIS stopping point? Trace the reasoning backward until you hit bedrock, a loop, or a genuine unknown.
What decision is being interrogated?
| Choice Type | Example | Why Interrogate |
|---|---|---|
| Procedure selection | "I'll use /rca for this" | Why that procedure? What made you pick it? |
| Measurement choice | "I'll measure success by X" | Why that metric? What are you NOT measuring? |
| Scope decision | "I'll analyze 3 options" | Why 3? Why not 5? Why not 1? |
| Stopping rule | "This analysis is complete" | How do you know? What would "more" look like? |
| Depth decision | "This is deep enough" | Deep enough for what? Who decided? |
| Ordering choice | "I'll do A before B" | Why that order? What if reversed? |
For the identified choice, ask: "What caused this choice?"
Choice: [the protocol decision]
↑ Why?
Cause 1: [what led to this choice]
↑ Why?
Cause 2: [what led to cause 1]
↑ Why?
Cause 3: [what led to cause 2]
↑ Why?
...continue until you reach:
Termination conditions:
| Termination | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Bedrock | Choice is well-grounded | Accept — but verify the bedrock is sound |
| Loop | Circular reasoning | INVESTIGATE — the choice may be arbitrary |
| Unknown | No real reason | INVESTIGATE — choice may be habit or default |
| Impulse | Intuition without justification | TEST — is there a better option? |
| External | Deference to authority | VERIFY — does the authority's reasoning hold? |
Measurement impulse: "I should measure something" → but WHAT and WHY?
Closure impulse: "This is done" → but HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Selection bias: "This procedure fits" → but DID YOU CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES?
After interrogation:
| Finding | Action |
|---|---|
| Choice is well-grounded (bedrock) | Proceed with confidence |
| Choice is partially grounded | Note the weak links, proceed with monitoring |
| Choice is circular or unknown | PAUSE — find a grounded alternative |
| Choice is biased | Debias — consider the overlooked alternatives |
| Choice is externally grounded but valid | Proceed, noting the dependency |
RCI ON PROTOCOL CHOICES:
Choice interrogated: [what decision was examined]
Causal chain:
[choice] ← [cause] ← [cause] ← ... ← [termination]
Termination type: [bedrock / loop / unknown / impulse / external]
Bias check: [measurement impulse / closure impulse / selection bias / none found]
Verdict: [well-grounded / partially grounded / poorly grounded]
Action: [proceed / proceed with monitoring / change / pause and reconsider]
If changing: [what alternative and why it's better grounded]