Kevin Veen-BirkenbachandClaude Opus 5.5
b67d9f233d
branches.py lists every open branch of the remote with its lag behind the base and whether it belongs to the operator: a pull request by the operator's login, or a branch whose own commits all carry the operator's email; merged branches drop out and fork pull requests are marked. The skill merges the base into the operator's own branches directly and into others only after consent through kvb-think-listen, never rebases, aborts on a conflict for kvb-git-merge-fix, and hands every push and gh pr update-branch to kvb-org-operator. tests/test_update_branches.py builds a bare origin with own, foreign, merged, PR and fork cases. Operator order 2026-11-03; three descriptions trimmed for the listing budget. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| kvb-think-dialectic | Thesis, independent skeptic antithesis and synthesis, iterated to ~99% confidence. Trigger for any root cause, design or decision that is uncertain and expensive to get wrong. |
Reach the truth by dialectic, not by first guess. Do not stop at a plausible answer; drive the loop until a thesis survives every attack at ~99% confidence.
Before you start: listen
Invoke the kvb-think-listen skill first. Do not begin the dialectic until you
have gathered every requirement, constraint, and success criterion the task
needs. A dialectic run on the wrong question wastes the whole loop. Return to
kvb-think-listen mid-loop whenever an objection turns on a fact only the
operator holds.
When another skill or an autonomous run (kvb-org-robot, kvb-ci-observe, a loop) invoked this skill, derive the requirements from the task and the evidence instead of asking; ask only when an operator-only fact blocks the conclusion.
The loop
- Thesis. Form the strongest initial claim you can, grounded in evidence,
not assumption. Deep-inspect every source you can reach: the source code and
git history; the running containers (exec, logs, inspect through whatever
make or CLI helpers the project exposes); CI logs and artifacts; tests; docs.
Cite
file:lineand command output — never a bare assertion. - Antithesis. Spawn MULTIPLE independent skeptics (parallel subagents or a
workflow, on the default model as the
kvb-org-performskill requires) whose only job is to REFUTE the thesis. Each re-inspects the sources itself and defaults to "refuted" on any concrete hole. Give diverse skeptics diverse lenses: correctness, an alternate mechanism, does-it- reproduce, does-the-fix-break-something-else. - Synthesis. Fold every surviving objection back into a refined thesis. A skeptic that found a real hole replaces or corrects the thesis; a skeptic that failed to refute raises confidence.
- Iterate. Repeat thesis → antithesis → synthesis until a full skeptic
round finds no new hole and the thesis holds at ~99%. If confidence stalls
below 99%, name the exact residual and the evidence that would close it, then
go get that evidence (more inspection, or
kvb-think-listenfor an operator-only fact) and loop again.
Rules
- Executed evidence beats reasoning: run it, exec into it, read the log. A thesis backed only by static reasoning caps in the low nineties.
- The antithesis MUST be independent — never let the thesis-author be its own sole skeptic.
- Diversity over redundancy: skeptics with different lenses catch failure modes identical skeptics miss.
- Report the final thesis with its evidence AND the losing objections, so the operator sees why it survived.