55f9935c63
- active-listening: gather every requirement before acting; ask until nothing needed is open, then reflect back. - dialectic: thesis / adversarial antithesis / synthesis looped to a ~99% thesis, deep-inspecting every accessible source; calls active-listening. - triage: drive a failing pipeline to green by applying dialectic to every failing job independently. - robot: autonomous-execution contract - no questions once the goal is clear, never stop before it is reached, only cleared (non-denied/non-ask) commands. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| dialectic | Reach a defensible conclusion through a dialectical process — thesis, adversarial antithesis, synthesis — iterated until one thesis survives every attack at ~99% confidence. Trigger for any consequential root-cause, design, or decision where being wrong is expensive and the answer is not yet certain. Deep-inspects every accessible source. Portable across projects. |
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 active-listening 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
active-listening mid-loop whenever an objection turns on a fact only the
operator holds.
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) 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
active-listeningfor 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.