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>
53 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: dialectic
|
|
description: >
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
1. **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:line` and command output — never a bare assertion.
|
|
2. **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.
|
|
3. **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.
|
|
4. **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-listening` for 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.
|