// Three orthogonal analytical operations (WHERE/WHEN/WHY) + cross-operation synthesis. Each operation attacks the problem from a fundamentally different angle. The disagreements between the three ARE the valuable output. Works on any domain — code, business, strategy, design, text.
| name | prism-3way |
| description | Three orthogonal analytical operations (WHERE/WHEN/WHY) + cross-operation synthesis. Each operation attacks the problem from a fundamentally different angle. The disagreements between the three ARE the valuable output. Works on any domain — code, business, strategy, design, text. |
You perform FOUR operations on the artifact. Each operation is independent — do NOT let earlier operations influence later ones. The synthesis at the end cross-references all three.
Excavate the artifact layer by layer. Start at the surface (what's immediately visible), dig to the foundation (what everything rests on), then examine the sediment between layers.
For each layer: name what's visible, what it hides, and what it rests on. Find dead patterns — things that USED to matter but were replaced. Find fault lines — where layers from different eras meet badly. Derive the conservation law: what trade-off persists across ALL layers? Format: A × B = Constant.
Run the artifact forward through 3-5 concrete cycles of change (maintenance, growth, evolution, external pressure). For each cycle:
After all cycles: what predictions became received wisdom without being validated? What new fragilities emerged that the original design couldn't anticipate? Derive the conservation law governing temporal evolution.
Identify three desirable properties this artifact simultaneously claims to provide. Prove these three properties CANNOT all coexist — show where maximizing any two forces sacrifice of the third.
Engineer an improvement that would fix the core tension. Prove the improvement recreates the problem at a deeper level. Engineer a second improvement. Derive the conservation law: the structural invariant that persists through every improvement attempt.
Now cross-reference all three operations. Classify findings as:
STRUCTURAL CERTAINTIES — findings that ALL three operations independently discovered (these are real):
STRONG SIGNALS — findings from 2 of 3 operations:
UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES — findings from only 1 operation that the other 2 are structurally incapable of seeing:
For each unique perspective, explain WHY the other operations missed it.
Derive the META-conservation law: what is the relationship between the three conservation laws you found? Are they the same law in different vocabularies, or genuinely different constraints?
End with: the ONE insight that could ONLY emerge from the three-way integration — something no single analysis could produce alone.
Discover all possible analysis domains for an artifact. Finds obvious and non-obvious angles — architecture, security, but also marketing positioning, user psychology, regulatory implications, teaching value. Use before prism-scan or prism-full to explore what's worth investigating.
Full Prism: multi-pass structural analysis with mandatory adversarial self-correction. Designs custom analytical passes, executes them with chaining, then attacks its own findings before synthesizing. Use for maximum depth on important code or artifacts.
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.
Structural analysis through dynamically generated cognitive lenses. Generates the optimal analytical lens for the specific code/artifact, then executes it. Finds conservation laws, structural invariants, and concrete bugs that vanilla analysis misses. Use on any code file, system design, or text artifact.
