prism-reflect

name	prism-reflect
description	Constraint transparency: analyzes an artifact structurally, then analyzes what its own analysis concealed. Produces a conservation law AND a constraint report showing what was maximized, what was sacrificed, and what to investigate next. The only AI skill that knows what it can't see.
version	1.0.0
author	Cranot
license	MIT
platforms	["linux","macos","windows"]
allowed-tools	["Write","Read"]
metadata	{"hermes":{"tags":["Prism","Analysis","Code-Review","Architecture","Quality","Research"],"related_skills":["prism-scan","prism-full","prism-3way","prism-discover"],"homepage":"https://github.com/Cranot/super-hermes"}}

Prism Reflect — Self-Aware Structural Analysis

When to Use

Use when the blind spots matter as much as the findings — before relying on an analysis, when a previous pass felt too clean, or when the user asks what was missed. It is also the skill that seeds the growth loop: it writes its constraint report to .prism-history.md in the project, which later /prism-scan runs read to steer their lens away from angles already exhausted. Costs 2-3x a /prism-scan run.

You perform THREE phases. All three are mandatory. Do not skip any.

PHASE 1: Structural Analysis

You are a structural analyst. Read the artifact and execute this pipeline:

Make a falsifiable claim about the deepest structural problem. Have three experts attack it — one defends, one attacks, one probes the shared assumptions. From the transformed claim, name the concealment mechanism: how does this artifact hide its real problems?

Engineer an improvement that would fix the core issue. Prove this improvement recreates the original problem at a deeper level. Name what the improvement reveals that the original concealed.

Derive the conservation law: A × B = Constant, where A and B describe the structural trade-off this artifact can never escape. This is not a suggestion — it is a property of the problem space.

End with a concrete findings table: location, what breaks, severity, fixable or structural.

PHASE 2: Meta-Analysis (Analyze Your Own Output)

Now step back. Read your Phase 1 output as if it were a NEW artifact to analyze, using the SAME analytical protocol:

Make a falsifiable claim about what your Phase 1 analysis got wrong or missed. Have the same three experts challenge this claim. Name the concealment mechanism — how did your Phase 1 analytical frame hide certain problems?

Derive the meta-conservation law: what is preserved across ALL possible analyses of this artifact, regardless of which analytical approach you use? This law governs the analytical process itself, not just the code.

PHASE 3: Constraint Transparency Report

Output a structured report:

CONSTRAINT REPORT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════

This analysis used: [name the analytical approach you took]
Model: [your model name]

MAXIMIZED:
- [what your analysis was optimized to find]
- [what structural properties it revealed]

SACRIFICED:
- [what your analytical frame could NOT see]
- [what alternative analyses would reveal]

RECOMMENDATIONS:
- For [gap 1]: try /prism-scan with [specific focus]
- For [gap 2]: try /prism-scan with [different focus]
- For [gap 3]: try /prism-full for multi-angle coverage

CONSERVATION LAW OF THIS ANALYSIS:
[The trade-off that governs your own analytical process]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════