一键导入
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
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。
菜单
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
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。
基于 SOC 职业分类
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 | ara-rigor-review |
| description | 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 |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | sop |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| input | A populated ara/ directory (Level 1 passed) |
| output | ara/level2_report.json (grade + D1–D6 + findings) |
| dependencies | {"skills":["rigor-reviewer"]} |
Key question: 这份 ARA 的认识论严谨度如何?逻辑弧在结构上闭合了吗?
先确认外部 rigor-reviewer skill 可 load。不可用则提示安装并停下。
跑 Level 2:Skill load rigor-reviewer,传 <artifact_dir> = ../ara/。
它对 ARA 跑六维语义审查(全是要读懂 + 推理的语义检查,不是结构校验):
产物:rigor-reviewer 在 artifact 根目录写 level2_report.json
(每维 1–5 分 + strengths/weaknesses/suggestions + severity 排序 findings +
overall grade + 给作者的问题)。
D5 低分不是错误,是"探索素材不足"信号。 透传给用户,由用户决定是否回
context-exploring 补打捞过程线。本 SOP 不自动循环。
注意:
rigor-reviewer的 D1–D6 是 ARA 自己的维度,与 DARE 的 D1–D5 评判 标准是两套东西,不要混。本 SOP 只透传 ARA 的报告,不施加 DARE 的 D1–D5。
ara/level2_report.json + 一句话总结(grade + 最该关注的 finding),交付用户。