Results for “fact-forcing”

Fact-forcing gate that blocks Edit/Write/Bash (including MultiEdit) and demands concrete investigation (importers, data schemas, user instruction) before allowing the action. Measurably improves output quality by +2.25 points vs ungated agents.

Verify the accuracy of claims and statements by extracting individual assertions, identifying authoritative sources, cross-referencing evidence, and assigning confidence-scored verdicts. Use when the user requests fact checking or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

Fact-forcing gate that blocks Edit/Write/Bash (including MultiEdit) and demands concrete investigation (importers, data schemas, user instruction) before allowing the action. Measurably improves output quality by +2.25 points vs ungated agents.

Verifies claims, articles, screenshots, and URLs through source-grounded analysis with an evidence ledger, source credibility evaluation, and manipulation detection. Supports quick checks, full fact-check cards, two-source comparisons, and prebunking in multiple languages and policy contexts.

Enforces anti-hallucination constraints including citation requirements, source grounding, and explicit 'I don't know' responses for research tasks.

Verify the article’s factual, product, citation, and link integrity before visual production.

Design a fact-checking protocol for AI-generated text, extending SIFT with AI-specific adaptations for hallucination detection. Use when students need to verify AI claims and citations.

Forces web searches and reading of official docs before implementing, integrating, or debugging third-party APIs, libraries, and services to ensure accuracy and avoid guesswork.

Answers factual questions by searching the web, fetching primary sources, and cross-checking claims before citing them.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bi

Audits hidden assumptions in decisions by classifying them into four types, ranking by fragility and impact, and rebuilding conclusions from verified premises. Auto-detects Chinese or English.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.

Find sources for every numerical claim in the draft, add inline hyperlinks, and add internal links to brand-reference articles. Triggered after /draft.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

Apag Advantage Framing

Evidence-first current-state research workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants fresh facts, comparisons, enrichment, or a recommendation built from current public evidence and any supplied local context.

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

Stress-test a feature idea for an existing product by surfacing risky assumptions across Value, Usability, Viability, and Feasibility using multi-perspective devil's advocate thinking.

Enforces running verification commands and confirming output before claiming work is complete, fixed, or passing, ensuring evidence precedes any success claims.

Multi-phase dialectical stress-test for HIGH-STAKES decisions only (architecture choices, irreversible product calls, strategic bets). Heavy-cost skill — do NOT use for routine questions, brainstorming, or simple tradeoffs. User must explicitly invoke or describe a decision they call "high-stakes", "irreversible", or "needs stress-testing". Triggers: "stress test this decision", "dialectic on", "challenge this thesis", "should I really".

Stress-test ideas, plans, and decisions using structured critical reasoning across five modes: Socratic questioning, dialectic, pre-mortem, red teaming, and evidence audit.

Decompose an unknown quantity into 3-5 estimable factors and produce a defensible order-of-magnitude answer without needing precise data. Load when the user needs to size something without data — market size, resource requirements, effort estimates, user numbers, costs — or when a decision is blocked by "we don't know the numbers". Also triggers on "ballpark this", "rough estimate", "how big is this market", "how long would this take", "how many users", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a sizing/estimation frame. The goal is not precision — it is a defensible answer that enables a decision to be made. Based on Enrico Fermi's estimation method.

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

Forces unrelated concepts together to spark novel solutions and emergent properties.

Write the executable feature specification — the WHAT and WHY artifact that agents and reviewers treat as source of truth. Owns both /specify and /clarify modes. Load when the user asks to write a feature spec, write a specification, write an executable spec, define functional requirements, capture acceptance criteria as Given/When/Then, or when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes here. Also triggers on "feature spec", "executable spec", "/specify", "/clarify", "write the spec for this feature", "specification for", "spec-driven", "machine-readable spec". Output: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-feature-spec.md. Hard gate: cannot Approve while [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain.

Pressure-test an idea through persona-driven interrogation until it hardens, proves out, or dies cheaply. Use when the user says 'forge an idea', 'pressure-test this idea', 'stress-test my thinking', or 'harden this idea'.

Socratic coach for breaking down problems to fundamental truths. Use when users want to think through a problem deeply, challenge assumptions, or find innovative solutions. Triggers on requests like "help me think through this", "let's break this down", "what are my blind spots", "I'm stuck on a problem", "challenge my assumptions", or explicit requests for first-principles thinking.